Blue Grass Airport (LEX) serves the needs of a multi-county area that

Transcription

1 SUMMARY BACKGROUND This Master Plan Update balances needed airport improvements with the goals of the community and arrived at a consensus on how to best meet future demand without sacrificing those natural and man-made resources that define the Lexington area. The process included extensive coordination, technical evaluations and community participation. The result is a Plan for airport development that provides for the future needs of the Airport and community. Introduction Blue Grass Airport (LEX) serves the needs of a multi-county area that includes the international center of the thoroughbred horse industry, the center of State government, educational institutions, and other major businesses. LEX is a gateway to many major airline hubs including those in: Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX New York, NY Chicago, IL Atlanta, GA Tampa, FL Charlotte, NC Memphis, TN Orlando, FL Cleveland, OH Detroit, MI Houston, TX Cincinnati, OH Newark, NJ Washington, D.C. With this network, LEX provides Lexington-Fayette Urban County citizens and a significant portion of the central and eastern Kentucky population with nonstop access to virtually all domestic and international markets. Since beginning service in 1946, the Airport has promoted business growth in the Lexington metropolitan area. Due to the importance of the Airport to the economic health of the region and to continue LEX s ability to meet the needs of the area, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Board (LFUCAB) began this Airport Master Plan Update. The process included a Community Outreach Program and considered demand beyond the typical 20-year planning period to identify what actions should be considered to promote the long-term viability of the Airport. As a part of this Master Plan process, a Terminal Area Study placed attention on future development of the terminal building, parking and ground access. Goals and Key Issues The primary goal of this Master Plan Update is to realistically define current and future demand at LEX; evaluate facility requirements to meet those demands; develop cost effective and environmentally sound options; and determine the role of the Airport in the local, regional and national aviation system while evaluating past recommendations. 20 1

2 A Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was formed to gain community input. Points made by the public and CAC A Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), made up of formal and informal community leaders, was formed to gain input about the community s values, goals, and the role of the Airport. The CAC studied the following items: Future activity at LEX and its impacts; Demand Management - Relocating some aviation to other area airports to meet commercial service demand; Development of a new commercial service airport elsewhere in the Lexington region to meet needs; Development options at LEX to meet long-range needs (20+ years); and, Development of the Airport so that it continues to be compatible with surrounding land uses. The CAC held 6 meetings, and input was gained from the general public through a series of 3 workshops. These workshops were also held to fully inform the community of all studies and findings. Input from the public and Citizen s Advisory Committee provided input valuable to the development of the final Master Plan recommendations. Based on meetings with the CAC and the public, the following points were made to the LFUCAB: Planning for future development should occur at the present airport site rather than an alternative location. Crosswind Runway 8-26 should be reconstructed to an alignment of 9-27, with a potential future length of 5,000 feet to serve General Aviation (GA) and small business jets. Triggers (other than growth of operations) should be identified for more focused land use planning and coordination with Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. Funding Sources To meet the anticipated need of $143.5 Million in improvements, LFUCAB is able to draw from several funding sources in addition to airport operating revenue. These sources include: Airport Improvement Program (Federal Government); Passenger Facility Charges; Rental Car Facility Charges; Non-conventional Federal, State, and Local Government Programs; and, Private Capital Investments. With the high cost of improvements, significant portions are eligible for funding by the federal government through the Airport Improvement Program. Current (through 2007) legislation allows for the funding of these projects based on a 95/5 percent split, with the Federal Government and local authorities, respectively. Table 12 shows expected development and funding at the Airport through the 20-year period. 5 % Local 95 % Federal Funding Breakdown TABLE PROJECTED AIP FUNDING Phase Project Costs Total Federal Projected Projected Airport Share Share of Eligible Entitlement Discretionary of Projected Costs Funds Funds * Costs* Initial Short-term $59,367,099 $44,827,500 $14,670,000 $15,429,292 $29,267,807 ( ) ** Trends that will influence future activity at LEX 2 Factors Influencing the Master Plan While many factors impact the aviation industry, this Master Plan looked at several trends that will influence future activity at LEX. These factors include: Events of September 11, 2001; Changes in the airline fleet mix; and, Socioeconomic conditions in the region and their influence on the level of aircraft operations and passenger demand. Remaining Short-term $14,982,165 $10,244,116 $5,161,139 $5,082,977 $4,738,049 ( ) Intermediate-term $33,598,492 $19,165,879 $8,785,063 $10,380,815 $14,432,613 ( ) Long-term $35,592,327 $22,912,869 $18,478,962 $4,433,907 $12,679,459 ( ) Total 20-Year Period $143,540,083 $97,150,364 $47,095,164 $35,326,991 $61,117,928 * This assumes that discretionary funding is awarded to cover all AIP eligible costs. ** 2003 Bond Report, Newton & Associates, Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2004.

3 18 Remaining Short-Term Capital Improvement Projects (Continued) 2008 Install REILs and PAPIs on Runway Annual Equipment Purchases (FAA and Non-FAA eligible) 2008 Annual Pavement Maintenance 2008 Additional Jet Loading Bridges (Four) 2008 Terminal Area Site 1 - Loop Road Enhancements Intermediate Capital Improvement Projects ( ) Annual Equipment Purchases (FAA and Non-FAA eligible) - 5 years Annual Pavement Maintenance - 5 years Airport Master Plan Update Expansion of Bag Claim Area Renovation of Existing Terminal Building (both floors) Terminal Area Site 2 - Loop Road and Parking Enhancements FBO Automobile Parking Area Improvements Utilities for T-Hangars (adjacent to Runway 9-27) GA Facility Site Work and 20,000 SY Ramp (No Buildings) Environmental Buffer - Versailles Road Scenic Corridor Construct T-Hangar Buildings off Runway 9-27 (48 units) Construct Access Road from Versailles to new GA facilities Self Serve Fuel and Wash Rack Facility Connect Perimeter Road to GA Apron (adjacent to RW 9-27) Demolition of L3 Communications Buildings Realignment of Taxiway D and Ramp Rehabilitation Develop Airport Observation Park Demolition of T-hangars Demolition of Hangar (Aerotech) Construct Large Conventional Hangars (3 units) Parking for Conventional Hangars (3 units) Long-Term Capital Improvement Projects ( ) Annual Equipment Purchases (FAA and Non-FAA eligible) 10 years Annual Pavement Maintenance 10 years Airport Master Plan Update Relocation of ARFF Facility & Associated Parking Demolition of ARFF Building Reconfiguration of Airport Maintenance Facilities Demolition of Airport Maintenance Buildings Realignment of Taxiway B (with bulkhead wall) Air Carrier Ramp Improvements and Expansion Expansion of Main Terminal Building Build Out of Concourse B (10 gate expansion) Additional Jet Loading Bridges (Nine) Terminal Area Site 3 Expansion of Parking Areas Taxiway Rehabilitations (Echo, Hotel, and India) Rehabilitate and Expand Main GA Ramp (Approx. 78,960 SY) Demolition of Hangar (Life Net hangar) Demolition of Hangar (Aviation Museum) FBO Facility Expansion (Private Development) FBO Expansion Parking Improvements TABLE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 18 Remaining Short-Term Intermediate-Term Long-T ong-term Construct Large Conventional Hangars (2 units) Parking for Conventional Hangars (2 units) Environmental Assessment for Runway 9-27 Extension Construct Runway 9-27 Phase 2 (1,500 LF extension) Relocate REILs and PAPIs for Runway 9-27 Rehabilitate Airport Drive Lighting/Electrical Vault Upgrades DEVELOPMENT PERIOD PROJECT COSTS Initial Short-Term $59,367,099 Remaining Short-Term $14,982,165 Intermediate-Term $33,598,492 Long-Term $35,592,327 Total for 20-Year CIP $143,540,083 Source: The LPA Group Incorporated, 2003 The collection and study of information relating to LEX and the surrounding community provided the basis for the analyses in this effort. The LFUCAB made an inventory of existing facilities to provide insight into how changes -- those at the Airport and in the surrounding region -- will impact the type and level of aviation services provided. A variety of approaches and sources were used to compile this facility information, which is a necessary foundation to prepare a realistic long-term development plan. EXISTING FACILITIES Airfield Area Two runways dominate the airfield at LEX: Runway 4-22, the primary runway; and, Runway 8-26, the crosswind runway. Issues associated with Runway 4-22 include the non-standard Runway Safety Area dimensions and the need for major pavement rehabilitation. Runway 8-26 also requires reconstruction due to poor pavement conditions. As a result, the LFUCAB proactively addressed both issues separate from the activities of the Master Plan Update. The runway system at LEX is supported by Taxiways (A through I) that provide access to the commercial terminal apron, fixed based operator facilities and general aviation areas. Due to non-standard runway / taxiway separation, a proposed extension of Taxiway A will be constructed at the required 400-foot separation, allowing aircraft to taxi and hold closer to the departure end of Runway 4-22 during Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) conditions. In addition, before constructing the Taxiway extension, a Modification to Design Standards was requested which will improve airfield capacity during instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Terminal Area The Terminal Area at LEX is located on the northeastern side of the Airport. The Terminal Area includes: Terminal Building; Public Parking Facilities; Rental Car Ready / Return Lots; Access Roadway System; and, Commercial Air Service Apron. BLUE GRASS AIRPORT 3

4 The original terminal building was completed in 1976 and has undergone several renovations and additions. 4 Other facilities that are within or adjacent to the Terminal Area include: Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT); Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON); Parking Lots -- Public, Rental Car and Employee; Air Cargo Facilities associated with the Airlines and Freight Forwarders; and, Facilities for a Carrier that Transports Thoroughbred Horses. The terminal access road, Terminal Drive, is accessed by the public from various directions in the Lexington area including Interstate 64 and Interstate 75, New Circle Road, and Versailles Road via Man-O-War Boulevard. The terminal area aircraft-parking apron has recently been expanded to provide approximately 124,000 square yards of paved ramp. The terminal building is a 2-story facility with a 3rd floor observation area, and is approximately 178,000 square feet in size. HISTORIC DEMAND The historic number of passenger enplanements, aircraft operations and based aircraft at LEX not only shows how much the Airport has served the Lexington market, but it also provides the foundation for aviation activity forecasts. Aircraft Operations and Enplanements The majority of aircraft operations at LEX comes from general aviation aircraft. The LFUCAB fosters LEX as a highly capable and desirable location for different kinds of users, but also recognizes that mixing light, general aviation with commercial air carriers can pose some challenges. Thus, the LFUCAB supported the development of the Georgetown Airport, which is located just north of Lexington and opened in 1993, to provide an alternative airport for general aviation users. At the same time, LEX has seen growth in its own commercial passengers and general aviation business jets. This increased activity has offset some of the training operations that were lost to Georgetown Airport. Capital Development Plan and Phasing The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for each period presents the improvements required during that period, but it does not assume how financially feasible it will be for the LFUCAB to undertake these projects. Virtually all projects through the year 2006 have been funded primarily with proceeds from the issuance of 2003 Bonds. A summary of the cost of improvement projects over the 20-year planning period is in Table 11. The combined program is anticipated to meet the forecast demand and requirements over the planning period. These estimated costs were determined in 2003 dollars; thus, as time goes by these values will need to be adjusted for the annual inflation rate. While the total 20-year CIP is large, over 1/3 of this amount is for projects that are already funded. Many of the projects are relatively high priority items under current FAA funding eligibility criteria. And, a portion of the costs will come from private investment in facilities at the Airport -- such as the large, clear span hangar development and FBO improvements. TABLE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS YEAR Over 1/3 of the $143.5 million improvement program is for projects that are already funded Terminal Area Site 1 - Loop Road Enhancements 17 Table 1 on the following page shows the number of past aircraft operations Terminal Area Site 1 - Public Parking Enhancements 2008 Terminal Area Site 1 - Rental Car/Employee Parking Enhancements PROJECT Short-Term Capital Improvement Projects 2004 Concourses B & C Stairwells 2004 RSA Area Improvements (includes RW 4-22 & TW A extension) 2004 Taxiway A Rehabilitation 2004 Terminal Interior Modifications 2004 Concourse Gate Addition (Includes two jet loading bridges) 2004 PFC Application Development (Non-bond) 2004 PFC Program Administration (Non-bond) 2004 Air Freight Relocation 2004 Rental Car Ready/Return Lot 2004 Executive Travel Lounge (Observation Deck Modifications) 2004 Hangar Improvements (8 box/8 T-Hangars) 2005 Airport Entrance Improvements 2005 Air Carrier Ramp Rehabilitation 2006 Runway 9-27, Phase 1 (EA-Design-Construction, Phase 1) Remaining Short-Term Capital Improvement Projects 2007 Taxiway A Centerline Relocation 2007 Acquire Downs Property (Approximately 20 acres) 2007 Acquire Scott and Hall Property (Approximately 121 acres) 2007 Construct Runway 9-27 Phase 1 (3,500 LF) 2007 Construct Taxiway B between Runway 9-27 and Taxiway A 2007 Annual Equipment Purchases (FAA and Non-FAA eligible) 2007 Annual Pavement Maintenance 2007 Taxiway A Centerline Relocation 2007 Acquire Downs Property (Approximately 20 acres) 2007 Acquire Scott and Hall Property (Approximately 121 acres) 2007 Construct Runway 9-27 Phase 1 (3,500 LF) 2007 Construct Taxiway B between Runway 9-27 and Taxiway A 2007 Annual Equipment Purchases (FAA and Non-FAA eligible) 2007 Annual Pavement Maintenance 2008 Additional Jet Loading Bridges (Four) Short-Term Remaining Short-Term

5 Figure 4 Figure 5 Terminal Area Site and Building Phases 5 4 With the help of Airport staff, a list of improvements was prioritized based on: 1) Urgency; 2) Ease of Implementation; and, 3) Logic of Project Sequencing. The development schedule is divided into 4 general stages: the initial short-term ( ), the remaining short-term ( ), the intermediate-term ( ), and the long-term ( ). During the course of the Master Plan, the LFUCAB made a financial commitment to address the FAA runway safety area mandate; this is why projects are grouped in the initial short-term and remaining short-term periods. Terminal Improvements In developing the Preferred Terminal Area Improvement Program over the next 20 years, the building and site projects are phased in coordination with other Airport Improvement Programs to get the best available funding and to allow for uninterrupted daily operations. The Terminal Area Site and Building Phases are illustrated in Figures 4 through 6. Year Total Enplanements Total Aircraft Operationss , , , , , , ,219 96, ,431 94, , , , , , , ,865 90, ,857 90, ,852 88, ,135 90, ,115 90,978 AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS This element of the Master Plan used updated projections of aviation activity as a basis for facility planning at LEX. This analysis drew upon the most current industry information and discussions with the FAA Headquarters Forecast Branch to define future levels of activity at LEX while taking into consideration the possible impacts of 9/11 events. An assumption of the analysis was that the relationship between Lexington and the larger U.S. domestic markets would remain unchanged. This analysis found planning level projections for the following kinds of activity: Enplaned Passengers; Commercial Service Aircraft Operations and Aircraft Fleet Mix; General Aviation Operations and Fleet Mix; and, Military Operations. The findings were presented to the LFUCAB, the Citizens Advisory Committee, and the general public for their consideration and comment. Source: 2001 FAA Terminal Area Forecasts and Blue Grass Airport Landing Reports for TABLE 1 ENPLANED PASSENGERS & TOTAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS 2050 Long-Term Demand Forecast Development The process noted above resulted in the study of seven alternative market share scenarios, which addressed not only the typical 20-year planning period for passenger enplanements and aircraft operations, but also looked further out to a 2050 planning horizon Figure 6 After considering the impacts of 9/11, a mid-range outlook was selected as the basis for facility planning. 5

6 Table 2 below is a summary of the projected operation levels by each segment of the aviation industry that operates at LEX. 20-YEAR TABLE 2 -- SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL FORECASTS Passenger Enplanements 439, , , , ,061 Air Carrier Operations 5,526 4,726 4,042 4,808 7,186 Forecasts of operational activity were also prepared for the long-range horizon to assess long-term development needs and to help promote the long-term viability of the airport. See Table 3 below. LONG-RANGE TABLE 3 -- SUMMARY OF LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL FORECASTS Enplanements 858, ,204 1,109,136 1,254,094 1,411,873 1,581,637 1,688,581 Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED. Regional/Commuter Operations 20,622 24,724 29,642 29,450 30,636 Air Taxi Operations 10,806 11,300 11,816 12,729 14,772 Cargo Operations General Aviation Itinerant 45,975 47,958 50,026 53,892 62,544 Local 4,859 5,197 5,558 5,988 6,949 Military Operations 2,504 2,570 2,637 2,753 3,000 TOTAL OPERATIONS 90,422 96, , , ,387 Based Aircraft Operations Air Carrier/Regional 37,822 40,499 44,161 47,616 50,049 52,527 56,632 Air Taxi 14,772 15,914 17,144 18,469 19,896 21,434 22,413 Air Cargo General Aviation 6,949 7,486 8,065 8,688 9,360 10,083 10,544 Local General Aviation 62,544 67,378 72,584 78,194 84,237 90,748 94,893 Itinerant Military 3,000 3,132 3,270 3,413 3,563 3,720 3,817 Total Operations 125, , , , , , ,799 It is acknowledged that human vision generally does not reach 20 years into the future, and that significant modifications to the forecasts are likely in the out-years of the planning term. Nevertheless, experience in public policy proves it more cost-effective to modify an existing long-term vision that is based on sound planning principles, rather than to attempt to deal reflexively and inconsistently with inevitable change in the policy and physical environment. For this reason, most airport master plans are updated generally within 10 years of completion of the preceding plan. In some instances, unforeseeable changes in social, political or economic factors may require an even earlier update to the forecasts, with subsequent modifications to previously expected facility improvements as early as 5 years into the 20-year term. Enhancements to airport support facilities are directly related to other airport improvements. As a result, the following facilities will be relocated and / or replaced: 3 Northern-most Buildings in the Airport Maintenance Area - Relocate and replace; ARFF Station - Relocate to the Southeast; and, ATCT - Possible relocation or elevation to meet visibility requirements. These requirements -- with the exception of the ATCT -- are necessary due to planned improvements at the Airport. Concerns with the ATCT are based on the existing operational conditions at LEX. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Based on anticipated demand and associated facility needs at LEX, an Implementation Plan was developed to provide general phasing and financial guidance to LFUCAB and Airport staff in making policy decisions over the 20-year planning period. The Implementation Plan stages the proposed improvements based on the interrelationships of individual projects and from the input received from Airport staff. The Implementation Plan also establishes the basic finances for each development action and identifies potential funding sources. Facilities to be relocated and / or replaced 15

7 14 Figure 3: Preferred Concept Terminal Building General Aviation / Airport Support Facilities The existing general aviation development area has a limited number of parcels remaining for development. The ultimate expansion of Concourse B encroaches upon the existing general aviation area, impacting both general aviation parking aprons and existing buildings. As noted above, to meet demand and to provide some added airfield capacity, the Master Plan recommends that facilities for small aircraft, notably single engine piston and small twin-engine piston aircraft, be developed adjacent to the new crosswind Runway By placing small aircraft operators next to the new runway and providing quality facilities for them, they can operate off of the crosswind runway most of the time and will not impact the primary runway as much as they do now. The Master Plan recommends that these operators relocate, and the area presently devoted to T-Hangars be changed to make room for large, clear span corporate hangars. Due to the physical limitations of the area south of the terminal, it is important to use the land area that is available. To increase efficiency, the alignment of Taxiway D is to be straightened and the older hangar facilities, occupied by the L3 Corporation, will be removed. When the area is redeveloped, it will provide additional parking apron and clear span hangars for future tenants. Also, a taxiway extending from the current general aviation area to Taxiway A will cross the northern end of the airport maintenance area, thereby providing a second means of access to the general aviation facilities area south of the terminal. 3 AIRPORT CAPACITY & FACILITY REQUIREMENTS T he Demand/Capacity Analysis examined the capability of LEX s airfield system to fully support the existing activity. It also determined the airfield s ability to meet future demand without causing significant / unacceptable delay or a decrease in the high quality of service. Methods: While elements of the traditional FAA s method for assessing airfield capacity were used in the Demand/Capacity study, the LFUCAB also considered the cost of capacity improvements vs the financial benefit. Thus, the Annual Service Volume (ASV) at LEX was used in order to provide a means of estimating the level of aircraft delay that would result as Airport operations grew and the aircraft fleet changed over the course of the 20-year planning period and the longrange planning horizon (2050). To determine whether there was a need for significant airfield improvements, such as the parallel runway recommended in the previous Master Plan, the LFUCAB conducted a Cost/Benefit Test. The results are included in Table 4. The low range is typical of airports with almost exclusive use by general aviation aircraft while the high range is more typical of airports with mostly commercial operations. Given the mix of general aviation and commercial activity, the average delay for LEX would fall roughly at the average of this range. YEAR Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, Base 2001 Forecast 2022 TABLE 4 -- ANNUAL AIRCRAFT DELAY AVERAGE DELAY PER AIRCRAFT (MINUTES) TOTAL ANNUAL DELAY (HOURS) Low High Low High ,672 Tables 5 and 6 on the following page show the projected level of Annual Aircraft Delay and the cost of this delay over the 20-year and long-term planning periods. 7

8 Annual Delay Estimates for 2022 Low Average High Total Calculated Annual Delay (hours) 522 1,097 1,672 Estimated Annual Cost of Delay $439,263 $922,977 $1,406,988 Average Cost Per Hour of Delay $ $ $ YEAR Major airfield capacity improvements would not be justifiable from a delay savings standpoint until the time frame. 8 TABLE DELAY COSTS TABLE 6 -- LONG-TERM DELAY COSTS TOTAL ANNUAL DELAY (HOURS) ANNUAL DELAY COSTS Low Average High Low Average High ,404 2,246 $472,184 $1,180,832 $1,889, ,851 2,912 $664,087 $1,556,925 $2,449, ,017 2,289 3,560 $879,558 $2,088,237 $3,296, ,675 3,630 5,585 $1,409,817 $3,054,140 $4,698, ,461 7,463 11,485 $2,913,061 $6,287,493 $9,661,925 The average annual delay of 1,097 hours in 2022 resulted in a projected annual cost of $922,977. This cost was then compared to the cost of major airfield capacity improvements. Thus, it could be determined when the cost of improvements could be justified by the cost of delay. Based on this comparison, major airfield capacity improvements would not be justifiable from a delay savings standpoint until the time frame. Facility Requirements The Facility Requirements analysis evaluated the entire facilities at LEX, including general aviation ramps and hangars, the terminal area including roadway access and automobile parking, and support facilities to determine the improvements that are needed to meet future demand. Key improvements included: Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, The need to address the condition of the crosswind Runway; The need to relocate the terminal roadway and provide additional auto parking; The most cost effective and safe means of enhancing aircraft movement on Taxiway A; The need to close some pavements at the Airport that serve no true purpose, such as Taxiway G on the northwest side of Runway 4-22; The need to expand long-term, short-term and economy parking adjacent to the terminal; and The need to improve Terminal Drive to provide adequate access to terminal facilities. The study also considered other facility needs at the Airport including general aviation requirements, airport/airline support facilities, and others which are summarized in Table 7 on the following page. Terminal Building Interior The interior of the terminal building can be divided and sub-divided into areas with associated functions to simplify its analysis and understand the relationship between the parts. In general, the terminal is divided into two primary sides: the unsecured side, which includes the ticketing and baggage claim activities, and the secure side, which includes passenger holding and gates. Overall, the terminal building serves the aviation needs of the community well. However, expansion in key areas and reconfiguration in others is necessary as shown in Table 9 Terminal Building Demand. TABLE 9 -- TERMINAL BUILDING DEMAND Existing Forecast Year Annual Enplanements 486, , , ,060 TERMINAL AREA Check-in Positions (ea) Ticketing Length (lf) Ticketing Area (sf) 1,877 1,980 2,244 3,036 Ticket Lobby w/circ. (sf) 4,823 8,910 10,098 13,662 Airline Ticket Offices (sf) 1 12, ,775 6,545 8,855 Baggage Make-Up (sf) 15,071 5,600 7,200 8,800 Checked Baggage Screening (sf) 3,834 3,834 6,000 8,000 Claim Devices (ea) Conveyor Frontage (lf) Claim Lobby w/circ. (sf) 10,696 14,950 19,550 24,150 Inbound Bag Ops. (sf) 4,281 5,600 7,200 8,800 Airline Storage (sf) Rental Car Areas (sf) 2,594 1,800 1,800 2,250 Non-Sterile Public Waiting (sf) 7,770 5,780 6,620 9,140 Primary Concessions (sf) 11,586 9,142 10,476 13,729 Misc. Lease (sf) 5,999 3,200 3,667 4,805 Security Screening /Queuing (sf) 1,728 2,761 2,987 4,268 Passenger Holding (sf) 15,123 30,500 31,900 38,000 Gates (ea) Airline Operations Area 3,817 8,500 8,500 10,000 Ground Service Equipment Storage (sf) 2 9,697 17,000 17,000 20,000 AREA SUBTOTAL (sf) 102, , , ,295 Circulation and Support Space (sf) (55%) 57,621 59,913 69,018 87,062 Administration Space (sf) 9,499 10,500 11,500 13,000 TSA Administrative Space (sf) 3,570 3,587 4,120 5,167 TOTAL AREA (sf) 173, , , ,524 (Not including 3 rd Floor Observation Deck) From this data, five refined Terminal Building Concepts were presented to the Airport staff for review. From these refined concepts, the Preferred Terminal Building Development was obtained as shown in Figure 3, Preferred Concept Terminal Building. 13

9 Figure 2: Preferred Terminal Site Alternative TABLE 7 -- SUMMARY OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS BLUE GRASS AIRPORT Runways Rehabilitate Runway Complete Runway 4-22 Runway Safety Area Improvements as required by FAA s May 2001 Determination of Practicable Acceptability. Provide a 5,000-foot crosswind runway meeting B-II standards during the short-term period. Conduct routine pavement maintenance as needed. Taxiways Address the Taxiway A centerline Runway 4-22 centerline separation distance. Overlay or rehabilitate Taxiways B, D, and F. Close Taxiway G. Develop additional taxiways as needed to support other airfield developments. Conduct routine pavement maintenance as needed. Terminal Area Expand long-term, short-term, economy, and employee parking. Expand ticket lobby, baggage claim lobby, passenger holding areas, circulation and administration space. Terminal Drive Redevelopment. Expand the number of concourse level airline departure gates. Expand Airport Operating Area. Increase number of Bag Claim devices. 2 General Aviation Facilities Support Facilities Construct at least 9 T-Hangars. Reconfigure or expand aircraft storage areas to increase usage. Construct clear span or corporate hangars on an as-needed basis. Address ATCT line-of-sight problem. Provide fueling capability in conjunction with GA developments west of Runway Replace snow and Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) equipment as needed. TABLE 8 -- SUMMARY OF TERMINAL AREA DEMANDS Access and Parking Relocate Aviator Road and expand parking for the public and employees. Make improvements to the airfield perimeter road as needed. Expand the Fixed Based Operator (FBO) parking area. Provide adequate parking for new hangars as they are developed. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 12 Airfield Improvements Central to the Master Plan effort was LFUCAB s desire to re-visit earlier findings of the need for a new parallel runway at LEX. As noted earlier, the financial justification for this runway was not warranted until With input from the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), the Master Plan also considered developing a new airport in the Lexington area. After looking at the cost, potential sites, environmental challenges, time frame, and political issues, the CAC recommended -- and LFUCAB agreed -- that a new airport was not needed. 9

10 Thus, the focus of the planning effort centered on developing the current Airport to meet future demand. Based on the forecasts, LEX would not experience a capacity problem within the required 20-year time frame of a FAA Master Plan Study. Alternatives for needed improvements were presented to the public and the CAC for discussion. Each option was reviewed based on: Cost; Land Acquisition; Impacts to Nearby Core Equine Thoroughbread Horse Farms; Noise; Environmental Impacts (Natural and Man-made); Operational Issues; and, Constructability. The discussions helped to find the positive and negative features of each alternative. This information was considered by the LFUCAB to find the option that provided for future airport development options while also taking into consideration the surrounding environment and goals of the community. The LFUCAB identified the necessity to re-orient, shift westward, and replace crosswind Runway This alternative would require the following: Shift Runway 8-26 to the west and re-orient to 9-27 alignment; Construct an initial 3,500 foot runway to serve general aviation aircraft; Terminal Improvements The results of the Demand/Capacity Analysis became the program for the development of future improvements to the existing terminal area and terminal building at LEX. Three Refined Concepts were presented to the Airport staff for review. From these concepts, the Preferred Site Alternative was developed. In the Preferred Site Alternative, as shown in Figure 2, the loop road (Terminal Dr.) is to be relocated into the adjacent property to the southeast, and into the RPZ of existing Runway 8-26 to the north. Since property adjacent to Man of War Boulevard is protected by a scenic easement, the airport has publicly committed to using landscape, berms or other means to shield the view of airport improvements from the roadway. Short-term parking remains on the first level of the garage and in the small surface lot closest to the terminal. The other surface lot to the east could be used as short-term or long-term as necessary. Long-term parking is still on the upper two levels of the garage, and more parking is provided in a surface lot that extends midway into the existing economy lot. Extending into the adjacent property to the southeast, as part of future long-range improvement projects, would increase the capacity of the long-term surface lot. Economy parking begins along the farthest limit of the long-term surface lot and occupies much of the remaining area within the loop road. A long, straight road allows good visibility leading to long-term and economy parking. Additional employee parking is provided in the widened loop road. The covered rental car ready/ return lot -- currently under construction -- is to be extended to the southeast. Airfreight Drive would be relocated to allow for the ready/return lot and would accommodate the 20-year demand. Figure 1: Initial Terminal Area Concepts Exhibit Acquire approximately 121 acres of land that fronts Versailles Road; and, Extend the Runway to an ultimate length of 5,000 feet as demand warrants. Associated with the Runway would be the development of a parallel taxiway and an area for parking aprons, T-Hangars and an FBO along the south side of the runway alignment. This alternative results in the least impact to surrounding areas, avoids the serious environmental impacts associated with other options, costs the least, makes use of existing airport property, and provides additional airfield capacity. Shifting light, general aviation to the new runway will also reduce taxi movements and associated incursion potential across Runway