CHAPTER FOUR AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES

Transcription

1 4.0 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER FOUR The goal of the master planning process is to provide the City of New Smyrna Beach with an assessment of the adequacy and capabilities of the Airport as well as to identify the best options available for addressing future development needs at the facility. To accomplish this goal it is necessary to evaluate alternatives for meeting the needs identified in the previous chapters and ultimately provide a planning framework on which to base future Airport development decisions. The previous chapter of the Master Plan identified a series of facilities that are deemed necessary for the New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport to adequately accommodate the aviation demands expected over the course of the 20-year planning period. While Chapter Three Facility Requirements identified the optimum Airport improvements that would be desired, it is the alternatives section that analyzes both the viability of meeting the identified need as well as how best to undertake the improvements from an operational, environmental, political, and construction perspective GENERAL The primary outcome of the Master Plan study will be the development of the future configuration of New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport as presented on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The ALP is the key funding document to which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) refer for project eligibility determinations, in addition to being an essential guide for orderly development. To develop this conceptual plan, it is necessary to conduct a complete and thorough review of the Airport s role in the community. Then, the best overall approach for the development of the facilities can be planned to maintain the Airport s required level of public service. Along these lines, an economically self-sufficient operating facility is the goal of a well-planned Airport. To achieve that goal, it is not only necessary to satisfy the anticipated aviation demands, but also to manage the land use for both non-aviation and aviation developments, to minimize adverse impacts and costs, and maximize revenue for the Airport. In analyzing and comparing the benefits of various development alternatives, it is important to consider the consequences of no future development at New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport. The do-nothing alternative essentially considers keeping the Airport in its present condition without any further improvements to the existing facilities. The primary result of this alternative would be the inability of the Airport to safely accommodate the projected demand. For example, the facility requirements discussion indicated the need for various airfield improvements, including regular pavement rehabilitation. Without these improvements and rehabilitation, areas would fall into disrepair. This would seriously affect the capability of the airfield to continue serving users and the community. Expanding facilities at the Airport is also necessary over the next 20-years. To ignore this would restrict the growth of aviation in the local area and region, which in turn, would reflect on commerce and economic growth in the region. In addition, the Airport has made assurances to the FAA in accepting past federal grants for Airport improvement projects that the facility would be operated at all times in a safe and serviceable condition. It would represent an irresponsible action affecting the long-term viability of the Airport and the Airport s service area. Therefore, the do- HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4-1

2 nothing alternative is not considered prudent or feasible, nor is it consistent with the long-term goals of the City of New Smyrna Beach. It should be pointed out here that any development proposed in the Master Plan evolves from an analysis of projected needs over a set timeframe. Even though the needs were determined by reliable methods, it cannot be assumed that future events will not change these needs. The Master Plan attempts to develop a viable scheme for meeting the needs brought about by projected demands for the next 20 years. No scheme should be adopted that requires expensive commitments prior to the certainty of need. However, the plan should allow for flexibility to expand beyond the plan, should the need arise. In addition, no plan of action should be developed that is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of New Smyrna Beach, which has a vested interest in the results of any development or lack thereof. New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport should be developed so that the facilities accommodate the demand and minimize any operational constraints. While these objectives may not be all inclusive, they should provide a point of reference in this alternatives evaluation process DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS Potential development schemes have been created for the future improvements identified in Chapter Three - Facility Requirements. Only those concepts considered in depth are presented in this chapter. The alternative concepts that required analysis include: Runway Extension Alternatives Taxiway Options Instrument Approach Options Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Sites Key evaluation criteria varied based upon the development under evaluation, but generally included safety, order-of-magnitude costs, probable community acceptance, and compliance with FAA standards. The following sections discuss the proposed development concepts and highlight the positives and negatives of each alternative. 4.1 RUNWAY EXTENSION ALTERNATIVES As discussed in prior chapters, New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport has three active runways. Runway is 4,323 feet by 100 feet, Runway is 5,000 feet by 75 feet, and Runway has a length of 4,001 feet and a width of 100 feet. These runways are considered adequate to accommodate the current operational activity at the Airport, including the Beechcraft 1900D. However, the discussion on runway length showed that the Airport cannot support many of the B- II business jet aircraft under certain conditions. Many of these jets, while in the same category as the critical aircraft, have the ability to operate at much higher takeoff weights. In order for the Airport to safely accommodate such aircraft, it was recommended that additional runway length be considered. The facility requirements identified that 5,500 feet of runway is needed in order to allow 100 percent of large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less to access the airfield with 60 percent useful loads in all weather conditions. As such, runway extension options were considered to preserve the City s ability to offer such a length. HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4-2

3 A number of factors were taken into account when analyzing the potential runway extension alternatives. A combination of land use considerations, existing roadways, existing railroads, and property acquisition affect the capability to fully address the runway length issue. The following sections discuss the alternatives that exist with each of the three runways to achieve a runway length of 5,500 feet with the appropriate safety standards, including the required Runway Safety Area (RSA), Runway Object Free Area (ROFA), and Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). As will be seen in all of the runway alternatives considered for New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport, the biggest constraint is that the airfield is landlocked on all sides EXTENSION OF RUNWAY For the extension of Runway 11-29, three alternatives were considered. The first was to extend the runway to the east, the second was to extend the runway to the west, and the third was to extend the runway in both directions Extend Runway to the East This first alternative is to extend Runway to the east. Due to the proximity of US 1, an extension of just less than 500 feet could be obtained while still maintaining the RSA and ROFA on Airport property. Such an extension would however require the application of declared distances, as the current Runway 29 threshold is based on the required non-precision instrument clearance over US 1. This option would provide approximately 4,800 feet of runway length, which is less than the recommended length of 5,500 feet Extend Runway to the West An extension of Runway to the west was considered next. Roughly 650 feet of runway pavement currently exists in this direction. This pavement, which just barely crosses the Runway alignment, was abandoned when the Runway 11 threshold was relocated. Runway 11 previously had a non-precision approach which required the threshold to be in its current location in order to provide the proper approach clearance over South Street. Currently Runway 11 no longer has a non-precision approach; however, one is planned for the future. As such, the threshold for Runway 11 needs to remain in its current location. An extension to the west is still possible in order to gain the recommended runway length, which is needed predominantly for takeoffs rather than landings. In addition to the abandoned 650 feet, another 600 feet could be obtained while still maintaining the RSA and ROFA on Airport Property. This would provide an overall runway extension of approximately 1,250 feet to the west. This extension, through the application of declared distances, would provide the recommended runway length of 5,500 feet. Unfortunately, this would only be true for aircraft taking off on Runway Extend Runway to the East and West Essentially, this alternative combines the two extensions described in the previous sections. Since neither of the two previous options could provide the recommended runway length in both directions, they were looked at together. Through the application of declared distances, an HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4-3

4 extension to the east and to the west would provide the recommended runway length for aircraft taking off in either direction on Runway Using the new photogrammetry obtained as part of this Master Plan Update, detailed calculations were made for the proposed Runway declared distances. The photogrammetry provided the various distances between the physical pavement ends, required safety areas, approach surfaces, and property lines. Additionally, the extensions were refined to 200 foot increments to facilitate the changes that would be necessary to the runway lighting. Finally, the extension to the west was reduced as much as possible to lessen the potential impact to any surrounding land uses. The result was a 400 foot extension to the east and a 1,000 foot extension to the west for Runway Both extensions would keep the ultimate RSA and ROFA for the runway on existing Airport property. While it will certainly be subject to the final survey, design, and construction, the resulting declared distance calculations for Runway are reflected in Table 4-1 below. Table 4-1 Future Runway Declared Distances Item Runway 11 Runway 29 Takeoff Run Available (TORA) 5,723 5,723 Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) 5,806 5,960 Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA) 5,506 5,660 Landing Distance Available (LDA) 4,506 5, EXTENSION OF RUNWAY Because the extension of Runway would require the application of declared distances, a possible extension to Runway was also explored. As part of the 1994 Airport Master Plan, declared distances were applied to this runway (then Runway 06-24). Much of this had to do with the fact that the physical runway pavement is squeezed between the alignments of US 1 to the northeast and Sunset Drive to the southwest. Both ends of the runway were displaced to provide the proper clearances for the visual approaches to each end. Using data from the aerial photogrammetry, the declared distances for this runway have been re-calculated. The new figures, reflected in Table 4-2 below, differ slightly from the previous declared distance calculations. Table 4-2 Existing Runway Declared Distances Item Runway 07 Runway 25 Takeoff Run Available (TORA) 5,000 5,000 Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) 5,169 5,114 Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA) 4,869 4,814 Landing Distance Available (LDA) 4,534 4,514 The exact reason for the differences are not certain as detailed information on the previous calculations was not available. However, the updated calculations are based on the current physical data and current design standards, which provide for keeping both the RSA and ROFA on Airport HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4-4

5 property. These updated figures have been included on the new ALP for New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport. While not impossible, the option to extend Runway is not considered feasible. Any extension to the northeast would require the relocation of a significant portion of US 1. Not only is this option cost prohibitive, it is also unlikely given the political and environmental impacts associated. The land immediately to the east of this portion of US1 includes significant creek and marsh areas which are all a part of the ecosystem off of the Ponce de Leon Cut. An extension to the southwest has nearly the exact same limitations. While Sunset Drive is a much smaller road than US 1, its proximity to Turnbull Bay leaves little option for relocation of this roadway. In both cases, even if the existing roadways were not a factor, the extensions would be quite limited due to the nearness of the different water bodies. While no extension is feasible for Runway 07-25, its current length does satisfy the FAA s requirement for the primary crosswind. This requirement is 80 percent of the primary runway length. Using the 5,500 feet planned for the primary runway, Runway only needs to provide 4,400 feet. This length currently exists given the updated declared distance calculation above EXTENSION OF RUNWAY Although Runway has the potential to be de-activated in the future, consideration was still given to the potential to extend this runway in order to obtain the 5,500 foot length recommended. Currently Runway has a 785 foot displaced threshold on the Runway 02 end. This displacement is necessary to provide the proper visual approach surface clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway located immediately to the southwest of Airport property. This rail line as well as Turnbull Bay Road would both have to be relocated if Runway were extended to the south southwest. Because such a relocation would also impact the residential areas on this side of the Airport, this is not considered a viable option. The Runway 20 threshold was relocated some time ago due to the condition of the first 1,000 feet of pavement on this end of the runway. An extension of Runway to the northeast, over this abandoned pavement is possible. In addition, another 200 feet could be obtained while still maintaining the RSA and ROFA on Airport property. This 1,200 foot extension would however require a displaced threshold for the approach to Runway 20 to provide the proper clearance over US 1. While this is a potential option, it is not the preferred runway extension alternative. The primary reason is that it does not provide the overall runway length required and is also the least favored runway alignment for the primary runway PREFERRED RUNWAY EXTENSION ALTERNATIVE Typically, the most advantageous alternative would be the one that satisfies all of the requirements with the least amount of impact. While four of the alternatives described above have no direct impact outside of the Airport property, only one can provide the overall recommended runway length of 5,500 feet. This is the alternative which combines extending Runway to the east and west. While the Airport does not currently have the minimum 500 annual operations conducted by aircraft requiring the ultimate increase in runway length, it is fully anticipated to occur at some point in the future. HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4-5

6 In the meantime, both extensions need to be included on the updated ALP to ensure that the ability to construct both in the future is preserved. Also, the future declared distances for Runway need to be documented on the ALP for FAA approval. This way, once the justification is documented, the Airport will be in a position to move forward with the environmental and design portions of the runway extensions, as well as obtain the necessary funding. Finally, the split extension alternative provides the ability for the Airport to phase the overall development program for improvements to the primary runway. 4.2 TAXIWAY OPTIONS As noted in Chapter Three Facility Requirements, the current taxiway system for the New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport is adequate except for the need for Taxiway E parallel to Taxiway C. All three runways have full length parallel taxiways providing access to every runway end. Nonetheless, some taxiway improvements are likely to be required in the future to enhance the overall airfield access and capacity. Having more runway exits would decrease the runway dwell time for each operation, thereby increasing the overall airfield capacity. Other considerations in determining the needed taxiway improvements at New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport included airfield safety and operational efficiency enhancements. The following sections address the alternatives and/or options for improving taxiway access to each of runways TAXIWAY OPTIONS FOR RUNWAY Taxiway improvements need to be included as a part of the projects to extend each end of Runway Currently the full length parallel taxiway, Taxiway A, is located on the north side with a taxiway centerline to runway centerline separation of 525 feet. For the extension of the west end, the only viable option is to continue the current Taxiway A alignment across Runway at the current centerline to centerline separation. Once the new parallel taxiway is beyond the future ROFA for Runway 07-25, it should turn to tie into the new runway end. This is reflected on the ALP and would keep the taxiway and associated Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA) on Airport property. The only other option to tie into the new runway extension would be to construct a parallel taxiway on the south side of Runway While a full length parallel taxiway should ultimately be considered on this side of the runway, it is not considered necessary during the 20 year planning period of this study. Also, after the runway extension is constructed, there will not be enough space on the south side of Runway 11 to hold departing aircraft so that they are out of the ROFA for both Runway and Runway On the east end, Taxiway A ties into Taxiway C, which then connects to the approach end of Runway 29. Once the runway is extended east, there will be the option to provide taxiway access to either the north or south side of the new runway end. Ultimately both connectors should be constructed. Initially it is recommended that the north access be developed first. This would provide the most direct and safest access for the facilities on this side of the airfield. However, because of the proximity of the existing t-hangars off of Taxiway C, this final portion of Taxiway A would need to be constructed closer to the new runway end. Using the future design standards, the final portion would only need to be at a 240 foot runway centerline to taxiway centerline separation, HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4-6

7 connecting Taxiway C into the new Runway 29 end. This alignment is shown on the ALP. For the south side, a similar connector should also be planned to accommodate the growing hangar areas on this side of the airfield. The angle between the alignment of Taxiway C and Runway would not allow this connector to tie into a future parallel taxiway alignment for the south side. Thus, the proposed connector ties into Taxiway C at a right angle, as shown on the ALP TAXIWAY OPTIONS FOR RUNWAY Currently Runway is served by Taxiway B which is the full length parallel taxiway that runs along the southeast side of the runway. There are no improvements proposed for this taxiway that would require an alternatives analysis. Proposed Taxiway E serves as another exit for Runway 07-25, and thus could be considered a taxiway option for Runway Nonetheless, the ability to ultimately provide a parallel taxiway on the northwest side of the runway should be preserved. This taxiway, while beyond the 20 year planning period of this study would require a 240 foot centerline to centerline spacing, be 35 feet wide, and run the entire length of the runway, including the displaced thresholds TAXIWAY OPTIONS FOR RUNWAY Taxiway D is the full length parallel taxiway on the east side of Runway While no improvements are proposed for this taxiway, the pavement configuration in front of the Runway 20 threshold needs to be re-evaluated. Because this pavement is not a displaced threshold, there are essentially three options for this pavement that will meet FAA standards. Either the full pavement width (200 feet) could remain in place, all but a 35 foot wide taxiway to the threshold could be removed, or all pavement before the Runway 20 threshold could be removed. For the first two options, the pavement unavailable for landing and takeoff would require the proper markings and signage required for a taxiway aligned with a runway. This includes yellow arrowheads prior to the threshold bar, yellow taxiway centerline markings, and yellow taxiway edge markings. For the full pavement width option, there would need to be four arrowheads and in the reduced pavement option, only two arrowheads. However, due to the various intersections and pavement geometry, it is not possible to locate the proper signage without creating a confusing and potentially unsafe operating environment. In addition, now that the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) is operational, aircraft rarely use the pavement before the Runway 20 threshold for takeoffs or landings. Therefore, to eliminate the risk of confusing geometry and to create a safer operating environment, it is recommended that the third option be considered. This would ultimately remove all of the pavement before the Runway 20 threshold OTHER TAXIWAY OPTIONS The final alternative related to the taxiway configuration relates to the recently decommissioned Runway While no longer suitable for use as a runway, this pavement alignment provides an excellent opportunity to enhance the overall airfield taxiway system. Currently Taxiway C runs between the approach ends of Runway 25 and Runway 29, along the heavily utilized flight line off of US 1. Taxiway C previously served as the parallel to Runway Because the two alignments are parallel, the old runway pavement could be used to provide additional bypass taxiway capability for the airfield. To properly do so would require a 35 foot wide part of the original 200 foot wide HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4-7

8 pavement to be reconstructed as well as properly marked and illuminated. Depending on the final taxiway alignment, 165 feet of pavement width should be removed to reduce the amount of impervious surface on this side of the airfield. 4.3 INSTRUMENT APPROACH OPTIONS As noted previously in this report, there was a non-precision instrument approach to Runway 11. Because this will remain the primary runway for the Airport and will be the predominant runway serving the larger turbo-prop and business jet aircraft, this approach should be re-established in the future. Such a straight in non-precision instrument approach would not be added until later in the planning period and would most likely be established using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology. The current Runway 11 threshold provides the necessary clearance over South Street for the 34:1 approach surface. Therefore, it will not need to be relocated in order to establish the new non-precision approach. GPS technology provides the opportunity to establish instrument approaches to almost any runway end. Unfortunately, neither end of Runway can take advantage of this ability. As described in the extension alternative for this runway, the current thresholds are displaced to clear US 1 and Sunset Drive. These displacements are for the 20:1 visual approach slopes. The 34:1 approach slope for a non-precision GPS approach would not provide the necessary clearance, and displacing either end further would make the runway too short for landings. The same is true for the threshold of Runway 02, as it would not have the proper clearance over the Florida East Coast Railway, which requires more vertical separation from any approach surface than Turnbull Bay Road. On the Runway 20 end, the current threshold would provide the proper non-precision approach surface clearance over both US 1 and South Street. However, establishment of a GPS approach to this runway end is not recommended at this time as the future of this runway is still questionable. 4.4 AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIRE FIGHTING SITES A recommendation in the facility requirements was for the Airport to plan for an Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility in the future. Currently the City operates a fire station on the corner of US 1 and Industrial Park Boulevard. Over the past several years City and Airport officials have discussed the possibility of locating a newer and larger station on Airport property. The station would be responsible for responding to general fire or emergency responses in the City as well as providing ARFF capabilities for the airfield. As needed, personnel assigned to this station would receive additional training related to aircraft emergency response. It should be noted that at this time, New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport does not have regularly scheduled passenger service; thus, this facility is not required by FAA standards. However, Vintage Props is currently a Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 135 operator and is applying for a Part 121 certificate. Depending on how they change the types of flights offered, their operation may require ARFF services in the future. Should this be the case, then the facility may be eligible for federal funding at that time. Nonetheless, since the City and Airport are committed to going through with this development, a site needs to be reserved on the airfield for such a facility. Prior to the master plan process, the City and Airport selected a site on Industrial Park Avenue, just west of the existing station. The site is just to the south of the decommissioned Runway pavement. This is considered a good site and will be reserved on the ALP for this use. HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4-8

9 4.5 SUMMARY OF The preceding sections have identified and analyzed a number of planning alternatives for future development at the New Smyrna Beach Municipal Airport. The alternatives presented focused on meeting future facility needs at the Airport while maintaining operational efficiency and safety standards. The positive and negative aspects of each alternative were presented and discussed to provide an indication of differentials between various options. These alternatives were utilized in the development of the final layout plans for the Airport. HOYLE, TANNER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4-9