FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DRAFT

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DRAFT"

Austin Blankenship
5 years ago
Views:

1 ORT LUERLE-OLLYWOO INTERNTIONL IRPORT ENVIRONMENTL IMPT STTEMENT.2 TERMINL GTE VERIITION Landrum & rown Team March 7 ppendix Purpose and Need

2 ORT LUERLE-OLLYWOO INTERNTIONL IRPORT ENVIRONMENTL IMPT STTEMENT TIS PGE INTENTIONLLY LET LNK Landrum & rown Team March 7 ppendix Purpose and Need

3 ORT LUERLE-OLLYWOO INTERNTIONL IRPORT ENVIRONMENTL IMPT STTEMENT PPENIX.2 UTURE TERMINL GTE EMN/PITY SSESSMENT ppendix.2 presents an independent 1 emand/apacity ssessment to determine whether the runway development alternatives can accommodate the future 212 and 22 aircraft gate requirements for future expansion of the LL terminal facilities. The assessment involves a three-step process: (1) Estimating the future aircraft gate requirements using a methodology that calculates the number and size of aircraft that need to be accommodated at the terminal building (contact gates). The raft EIS methodology involves the use of the LL 212 and 22 flight schedules that represent the peak hour of the peak month/average day (PM) and a gate utilization Excel spreadsheet model. 2 y applying the gate utilization model to future LL schedules the peak aircraft parking requirements at the terminal were determined. (2) Once the number of aircraft parking positions is determined for 212 and 22 in Step 1, an estimate of the total aircraft wingspan frontage requirement needed at the terminal is calculated. The total wingspan frontage requirement is calculated by using the wingspan dimension of each aircraft parked at the terminal combined with a wingtip separation of 25 feet between each aircraft. The combined total of all of the individual wingspan dimensions and wingtip separations represents the total aircraft parking frontage needed to accommodate the contact gate positions located at the terminal building for the 21 and 22 demand levels. (3) With the total aircraft frontage parking frontage determined for 21 and 22 in Step 2, these requirements are then used to determine whether the available terminal site capacity of the EIS runway development alternatives can satisfy the future terminal aircraft frontage requirement demands. 1 2 Per the National Environmental Policy ct of 1969 (NEP), an independent evaluation by the responsible ederal agency () must be completed before any major ederal action (being funded under a program of grants) can be approved. Source: The National Environmental Policy ct of 1969, as amended (Pub. L , 42 U.S , January 1, 197, as amended by Pub. L , July 3, 1975, Pub. L , ugust 9, 1975, and Pub. L , 4(b), Sept. 13, 1982). Sec. 12 [42 US 4332].()(iii). The gate utilization model is a Microsoft Office Excel spreadsheet model that analyzes gate utilization by determining the peak period aircraft parking requirements during a typical average day of the peak month. Landrum & rown Team March 7 ppendix.2 uture Terminal Gate Page.2-1

4 ORT LUERLE-OLLYWOO INTERNTIONL IRPORT ENVIRONMENTL IMPT STTEMENT.2.1 ESTIMTE IRRT LEET N SSOITE WINGSPN RONTGE REQUIREMENTS s part of Steps 1 and 2, a potential theoretical minimum and a relative maximum number of required aircraft gates and parking positions were developed using the flight schedules and Excel spreadsheet model. pure common-use gate operational arrangement is the most efficient way to operate gates and is used to represent the theoretical minimum airport gate requirement. or purpose of reflecting traffic seasonality and the impact of the terminal configuration on the number of available aircraft gates, two mixed-use scenarios were developed using a combination of exclusive and common-use operations. The first scenario reflects how air carriers currently operate at the airport, while the second scenario assumes a higher percentage of exclusive-use operations. This scenario was used to represent the upper limit of the gate requirements. Using these three scenarios resulted in a bracketing of a theoretical minimum and relative maximum number of contact gates and associated aircraft frontage requirements. The contact gate and associated aircraft frontage requirements are presented below: 1% ommon-use Gate Requirement: Operating the entire airport as a common-use facility represents the minimum gate requirement. This is a departure from the way most air carriers currently operate at LL and therefore, probably could not realistically be expected to be achieved. owever, it does represent the low end of the gate requirement range. or 212, this minimum requirement is 47 contact gates and 5,85 feet of linear frontage. or 22, this minimum contact gate requirement is 54 contact gates and 6,66 of linear frontage. 5% ommon-use Gate Requirement: a combination of exclusive-use gates and common-use gates was used, following a pattern similar to how the air carriers currently operate today at LL. or 212, the maximum requirement is 59 contact gates and 7,37 feet of linear frontage. or 22, the maximum requirement is 67 contact gates and 8,85 of linear frontage. 15% ommon-use Gate Requirement: In order to determine the relative maximum number of gates required, a higher percentage of exclusive-use gates was used, assuming that some airlines would require to have their own gates as their traffic increase. or 212, 69 contact gates would be required, representing 8,78 feet of linear frontage. or 22, these numbers increase to 77 gates and 1,165 feet of linear frontage. Table.2-1, ontact Gate Requirements (212 and 22), summarizes the results from the raft EIS. Landrum & rown Team March 7 ppendix.2 uture Terminal Gate Page.2-2

5 ORT LUERLE-OLLYWOO INTERNTIONL IRPORT ENVIRONMENTL IMPT STTEMENT Table.2-1 ONTT GTE REQUIREMENTS (212 N 22) Number of ontact Gates ircraft Number of rontage (feet) ontact Gates ircraft rontage (feet) raft EIS Verification 1% ommon Use 47 5, ,66 5% ommon Use 59 7, ,85 15% ommon Use 69 8, ,165 Source: Landrum & rown, 7 or the purposes of the raft EIS, the 212 maximum gate count and frontage requirement of 69 gates/8,78 feet of aircraft frontage were used as the critical benchmarks for the land envelope required for each runway alternative. Using a projected 22 demand schedule, the raft EIS analysis identified requirements for 77 gates and 1,165 feet of aircraft frontage. The terminal aircraft gate and apron demand/capacity assessment for the raft EIS 212 and 22 forecasts using the MPU runway alternatives is presented in the following section..2.3 TERMINL IRRT GTE N PRON EMN / PITY SSESSMENT The proposed EIS runway alternatives were analyzed for sufficient capacity within the terminal land envelope, using the maximum frontage requirement from the EIS gate utilization analysis. or each EIS alternative, conceptual terminal apron drawings were prepared showing generalized terminal apron areas, associated aircraft frontage, and supporting taxiways/taxilanes. The analysis used the conceptual MPU-Phase 1 terminal configurations..2-1 lternative irfield No ction.2-2 lternative Expanded Terminal - Redevelop and extend existing Runway 9R/27L to an 8,6-foot by 15-foot elevated runway.2-3 lternative 1b MPU Terminal Option 2 - Redevelop and extend existing Runway 9R/27L to an 8,-foot by 15-foot elevated runway with EMS.2-4 lternative 1c 212 MPU Terminal Option 2 (irport Sponsors Project) - Redevelop and extend existing Runway 9R/27L to an 8,-foot by 15- foot elevated runway with EMS; runway use determined by roward ounty s Interlocal greements.2-5 lternative MPU Terminal Option 2 (Refined) - uild a new 6,1-foot at grade runway with EMS located 34 feet north of existing south runway (to replace existing Runway 9R/27L) Landrum & rown Team March 7 ppendix.2 uture Terminal Gate Page.2-3

6 ORT LUERLE-OLLYWOO INTERNTIONL IRPORT ENVIRONMENTL IMPT STTEMENT.2-6 lternative MPU Terminal Option 2 - uild a 7,-foot elevated runway with EMS located 32 feet south of existing south runway (to replace existing Runway 9R/27L).2-7 lternative MPU Terminal Option 2 - uild a 7,721 foot at grade runway located 85 feet north of existing Runway 9L/27R (a dependent parallel runway to existing Runway 9L/27R).2-8 lternative MPU Terminal Option 2 - Redevelop and extend existing Runway 9R/27L to 8, feet and build a new 7,721-foot runway north of existing Runway 9L/27R (combination of lternatives 1b and 1).2-9 lternative MPU Terminal Option 2 - uild a new 6,1-foot at grade runway with EMS located 34 feet north of existing south runway and build a 7,721 foot at grade runway located 85 feet north of existing Runway 9L/27R (combination of lternatives 4 and 1).2-1 lternative 1b 22 MPU Terminal Option 2 - Redevelop and extend existing Runway 9R/27L to an 8,-foot by 15-foot elevated runway with EMS.2-11 lternative 1c 22 MPU Terminal Option 2 - Redevelop existing Runway 9R/27L to an 8,-foot by 15-foot elevated runway with EMS; runway use determined by roward ounty s Interlocal greements.2-12 lternative 4 22 MPU Terminal Option 2 (Refined) - uild a new 6,1-foot at grade runway with EMS located 34 feet north of existing south runway (to replace existing Runway 9R/27L).2-13 lternative 5 22 MPU Terminal Option 2 - uild a 7,-foot elevated runway with EMS located 32 feet south of existing south runway (to replace existing Runway 9R/27L).2-14 lternative 1 22 MPU Terminal Option 2 - uild a 7,721 foot at grade runway located 85 feet north of existing Runway 9L/27R (a dependent parallel runway to existing Runway 9L/27R).2-15 lternative 1 22 MPU Terminal Option 2 - Redevelop and extend existing Runway 9R/27L to 8, feet and build a new 7,721-foot runway north of existing Runway 9L/27R (combination of lternatives 1b and 1) Landrum & rown Team March 7 ppendix.2 uture Terminal Gate Page.2-4

7 ORT LUERLE-OLLYWOO INTERNTIONL IRPORT ENVIRONMENTL IMPT STTEMENT.2-16 lternative 2 - irfield/22 MPU Terminal Option 2 - uild a new 6,1-foot at grade runway with EMS located 34 feet north of existing south runway and build a 7,721 foot at grade runway located 85 feet north of existing Runway 9L/27R (combination of lternatives 4 and 1 Table.2-2, Runway evelopment lternatives/terminal Gate rontage nalysis, summarizes the gate frontage available for each runway development alternative in 212 and 22. The table provides a comparison to the raft EIS benchmarks for maximum gate count and frontage. Table.2-2 RUNWY EVELOPMENT LTERNTIVES/TERMINL GTE RONTGE NLYSIS EIS LTERNTIVES vailable 212 rontage (feet) vailable 22 rontage (feet) EIS enchmark ontact Gate rontage Requirement 8,78 1,165 lternative (No ction) irfield/terminal 9,25* 9,25* lternative 1 1/ 12,77* 12,77* lternative 1b 12,38* 13,635* lternative 1c (irport Sponsor s Project) 12,38* 13,635* lternative 4 2/ 12,38* 12,54* lternative 5 12,38* 13,635* lternative 1 12,38* 13,635* lternative 1 12,38* 13,635* lternative 2 12,38* 13,185* * The frontage numbers shown in Table.2-2 represent the theoretical aircraft frontage capacity available inside the terminal site envelopes for each runway development alternative. 1/ or lternative 1, the terminal configuration used is based on the actual pier configuration, while lternatives 1b and 1c use a linear configuration, providing more gate frontage. s no terminal improvements are scheduled between 212 and 22, the terminal gate frontage for lternative 1 remains the same. 2/ The 22 frontage is lower than the other alternatives due to the crosswind runway 13/31 still active. Source: Landrum & rown, 7 Table.2-3, 212 nalysis Results and Table.2-4, 22 nalysis Results summarize the ability of each runway development alternative to meet or not meet the anticipated maximum contact gate frontage demand shown in Table.2-2, EIS Runway lternatives/terminal Gate rontage nalysis. In 212, lternative meets the frontage requirements. owever, the existing airfield is composed of 57 contact gates, while the model requires 69 contact gates. Therefore, the terminal gate frontage will have to be reconfigured in order to accommodate the future fleet. Landrum & rown Team March 7 ppendix.2 uture Terminal Gate Page.2-5

8 ORT LUERLE-OLLYWOO INTERNTIONL IRPORT ENVIRONMENTL IMPT STTEMENT Table NLYSIS RESULTS EIS irfield lternative lternative (No ction irfield/terminal) lternative 1 lternative 1b lternative 1c (irport Sponsor s Project) lternative 4 lternative 5 lternative 1 lternative 1 lternative 2 Source: Landrum & rown, 7 apacity Meets emand emand Exceeds apacity The analysis determined that all runway development alternatives provide a sufficient land envelope to accommodate the 212 gate requirements. Table NLYSIS RESULTS EIS irfield lternative lternative (No ction- irfield/terminal) lternative 1 lternative 1b lternative 1c (irport Sponsor s Project) lternative 4 lternative 5 lternative 1 lternative 1 lternative 2 Source: Landrum & rown, 7 apacity Meets emand emand Exceeds apacity The analysis also determined that all of the runway development alternatives provide a sufficient land envelope to accommodate the 22 gate requirements. Landrum & rown Team March 7 ppendix.2 uture Terminal Gate Page.2-6

9 1,93 lft. 1,495 lft. E Terminal 2 Terminal 1 Terminal 3 1,49 lft. Terminal 4 1,525 lft. Envelope (212 cres) oncourse : 1,495 lf subtotal: 2,865 lf oncourse : 1,44 lf oncourse E: 1,93 lf subtotal: 3,42 lf oncourse : 1,525 lf TOTL: 9,25 L 1 olortable: LL Options.ctbLTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 2:39 PMPlotted On: 2/26/7 2:45 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\212\lt1.dwg lternative - irfield No ction / No uild.2-1

10 1,495 lft. 1,215 lft. 1,23 lft. 85 lft. 2,82 lft. E Terminal 1 Terminal 3 Terminal 2 1,49 lft. Terminal lft. Envelope (24 cres) 42 lft. 1,355 lft. oncourse : 85 lf oncourse : 1,23 lf 1,45 lft. subtotal: 3,25 lf oncourse : 1,495 lf oncourse E: 2,82 lf subtotal: 4,31 lf oncourses: 3,715 lf TOTL: 12,77 L olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 2:4 PM Plotted On: 2/26/7 2:46 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\212\lt2.dwg lternative Expanded Terminal 1.2-2

11 1,165 lft. 1,785 lft. O N OU RS EE E TERMINL 2 PLM GRGE PLZ TERMINL 1 IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY ONOURSE 3,45 lft. TERMINL 4 UTURE INTERMOL ENTER & 2,81 lft. Envelope (24 cres) oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf 267' oncourse : 1,165 lf ' oncourse E: 1,785 lf subtotal: 4,83 lf oncourses: 2,81 lf TOTL: 12,38 L olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 2:42 PM Plotted On: 2/26/7 2:46 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\212\lt3.dwg lternative 1b 212 MPU Terminal Option

12 1,165 lft. 1,785 lft. O N OU RS EE E TERMINL 2 PLM GRGE PLZ TERMINL 1 IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY ONOURSE 3,45 lft. TERMINL 4 UTURE INTERMOL ENTER & 2,81 lft. Envelope (24 cres) oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf 267' oncourse : 1,165 lf ' oncourse E: 1,785 lf subtotal: 4,83 lf oncourses: 2,81 lf TOTL: 12,38 L olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 2:42 PM Plotted On: 2/26/7 2:46 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\212\lt4.dwg lternative 1c 212 MPU Terminal Option 2 (Sponsors Terminal Project) 1.2-4

13 1,785 lft. 1,165 lft. ONOURSE E E TERMINL 2 TERMINL 1 PLM GRGE PLZ IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY 3,45 lft. TERMINL 4 225' 2,81 lft. Envelope ( cres) oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf ' oncourse : 1,165 lf oncourse E: 1,785 lf subtotal: 4,83 lf oncourses: 2,81 lf TOTL: 12,38 L 1 16 olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 2:42 PMPlotted On: 2/26/7 2:47 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\212\lt5.dwg lternative MPU Terminal Option 2 - Refined.2-5

14 1,785 lft. 1,165 lft. ONOURSE E E TERMINL 2 TERMINL 1 ONOURSE PLM GRGE PLZ IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY 3,45 lft. TERMINL 4 UTURE INTERMOL ENTER 2,81 lft. Envelope (24 cres) oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf oncourse : 1,165 lf oncourse E: 1,785 lf subtotal: 4,83 lf oncourses: 2,81 lf TOTL: 12,38 L 16 olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 2:41 PMPlotted On: 2/26/7 2:47 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\212\lt6.dwg lternative MPU Terminal Option 2.2-6

15 1,165 lft. 1,785 lft. O N OU RS EE E TERMINL 2 PLM GRGE PLZ TERMINL 1 IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY ONOURSE 3,45 lft. TERMINL 4 Envelope (24 cres) 2,81 lft. oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf oncourse : 1,165 lf oncourse E: 1,785 lf subtotal: 4,83 lf oncourses: 2,81 lf TOTL: 12,38 L olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 2:41 PM Plotted On: 2/26/7 2:47 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\212\lt7.dwg lternative MPU Terminal Option

16 1,165 lft. 1,785 lft. O N OU RS EE E TERMINL 2 PLM GRGE PLZ TERMINL 1 IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY ONOURSE 3,45 lft. TERMINL 4 Envelope (24 cres) 2,81 lft. oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf oncourse : 1,165 lf oncourse E: 1,785 lf subtotal: 4,83 lf oncourses: 2,81 lf TOTL: 12,38 L olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 2:41 PM Plotted On: 2/26/7 2:48 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\212\lt8.dwg lternative MPU Terminal Option

17 1,785 lft. 1,165 lft. ONOURSE E E TERMINL 2 TERMINL 1 ONOURSE PLM GRGE PLZ IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY 3,45 lft. TERMINL 4 225' 2,81 lft. Envelope (232 cres) oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf ' oncourse : 1,165 lf oncourse E: 1,785 lf subtotal: 4,83 lf oncourses: 2,81 lf TOTL: 12,38 L 16 olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 2:41 PMPlotted On: 2/26/7 2:48 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\212\lt9.dwg lternative MPU Terminal Option 2.2-9

18 2,175 lft. 4,3 lft. 37 lft. TERMINL 2 REMOELE PLM GRGE PLZ TERMINL 1 IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY 245 lft. TERMINL 4 Envelope (24 cres) 2,97 lft. oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf 267' oncourse : 2,175 lf ' oncourse : 4,915 oncourses: 2,97 lf TOTL: 13,635 L olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 3:53 PM Plotted On: 2/26/7 4:17 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\22\lt3.dwg lternative 1b 22 MPU Terminal Option

19 2,175 lft. 4,3 lft. 37 lft. TERMINL 2 REMOELE PLM GRGE PLZ TERMINL 1 IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY 245 lft. TERMINL 4 Envelope (24 cres) 2,97 lft. oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf 267' oncourse : 2,175 lf ' oncourse : 4,915 oncourses: 2,97 lf TOTL: 13,635 L olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 4:15 PM Plotted On: 2/26/7 4:18 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\22\lt4.dwg lternative 1c 22 MPU Terminal Option

20 1,53 lft. 94 1, TERMINL 2 TERMINL 1 lft. lft. (4,63 lft.) 1, lft. REMOELE PLM GRGE PLZ IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY TERMINL 4 Envelope ( cres) 2,81 lft. oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf ' oncourse : 2,47 lf oncourse : 3,685 oncourses: 2,81 lf TOTL: 12,54 L olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 4:14 PM Plotted On: 2/26/7 4:18 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\22\lt5.dwg lternative 4 22 MPU Terminal Option 2 - Refined

21 2,175 lft. 4,3 lft. 37 lft. TERMINL 2 REMOELE PLM GRGE PLZ TERMINL 1 IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY 245 lft. TERMINL 4 Envelope (24 cres) 2,97 lft. oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf oncourse : 2,175 lf oncourse : 4,915 oncourses: 2,97 lf TOTL: 13,635 L olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 4:14 PM Plotted On: 2/26/7 4:18 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\22\lt6.dwg lternative 5 22 MPU Terminal Option

22 2,175 lft. 4,3 lft. 37 lft. TERMINL 2 REMOELE PLM GRGE PLZ TERMINL 1 IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY 245 lft. TERMINL 4 Envelope (24 cres) 2,97 lft. oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf oncourse : 2,175 lf oncourse : 4,915 oncourses: 2,97 lf TOTL: 13,635 L olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 3:46 PM Plotted On: 2/26/7 4:19 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\22\lt7.dwg lternative 1 22 MPU Terminal Option

23 2,175 lft. 4,3 lft. 37 lft. TERMINL 2 REMOELE PLM GRGE PLZ TERMINL 1 IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY 245 lft. TERMINL 4 Envelope (24 cres) 2,97 lft. oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf oncourse : 2,175 lf oncourse : 4,915 oncourses: 2,97 lf TOTL: 13,635 L olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 3:46 PM Plotted On: 2/26/7 4:19 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\22\lt8.dwg lternative 1 22 MPU Terminal Option

24 2,175 lft. 37 lft. 4,15 lft. TERMINL 2 REMOELE PLM GRGE PLZ TERMINL 1 IISUS GRGE ONSOLITE R RENTL ILITY 245 lft. TERMINL 4 Envelope (232 cres) 2,85 lft. oncourse : 775 lf oncourse : 1,43 lf oncourse : 2,175 lf ' oncourse : 4,63 oncourses: 2,85 lf TOTL: 13,185 L olortable: LL Options.ctb LTScale: 2 Last Saved: 2/26/7 4:15 PM Plotted On: 2/26/7 4:2 PM ile: T:\LL\\EIS-Gate emand\lternatives\22\lt9.dwg lternative 2 22 MPU Terminal Option

FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DRAFT

FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DRAFT D.3 RUNWAY LENGTH ANALYSIS Appendix D Purpose and Need THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Appendix D Purpose and Need APPENDIX D.3 AIRFIELD GEOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS This information provided in this appendix