AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE

Preffered Alternative

Alternative #4

SELECT PREFERRED RUNWAY SAFETY AREA
The final step in the assessment of RSA alternatives is to select the preferred option. The process includes the development of a summary matrix assigning points to each criterion as it relates to each specific alternative. In this instance, a five-point maximum is used indicating that development criteria are fully addressed or significant impacts to any of the categories are avoided. The highest point total indicates the preferred alternative.

The table above shows that options RSA 5A and RSA 5B received the two highest point totals of the evaluated alternatives. The other alternatives received lower point totals due to non-compliance with either one or both development constraints or did not satisfy design criteria compliance. Both 5A and 5B meet all compliance issues and satisfy the objectives of the Purpose and Need statement. Although both options received the same point value in the Human Environment category, there are slight differences between them. Option RSA 5A, in which South Mountain Road will be closed resulting in some traffic impacts, will require one less residential property acquisition. Alternative RSA 5B, that proposes the relocation of South Mountain Road, will negate the traffic impacts associated with the road closure, but an additional property acquisition will be required to provide the new connection with Barker Road.

In summary, the preferred RSA development alternative is 5A (shown as preferred alternative); construction of full RSAs with the relocation of 850 feet of runway from the Runway 08 end to the Runway 26 end with the closure of South Mountain Road. This alternative was selected because the impacts associated with the South Mountain Road closure are minimal from a traffic and social impact viewpoint. The alternatives that resulted in a shortened runway and impacts to Barker Road were not selected because the impacts were determined to be significant. However, the selection of RSA development alternative 5A is made independent of the runway extension alternatives discussed in the next section. When combined with the runway extension alternatives, it is apparent that other RSA development alternatives also must be considered to create the preferred runway development project. Therefore, not only is RSA development alternative 5A advanced to the next section, but the road relocation of RSA development alternative 5B is also carried forward in this subsequent analysis of runway extension alternatives and final recommendations regarding South Mountain Road are determined therein.

SELECT PREFERRED RUNWAY EXTENSION ALTERNATIAVE
The selection of the preferred runway extension alternative is done with a similar matrix used for the RSAs as follows:

The table indicates that the 950 foot runway extension is the preferred alternative. Although all point totals are reasonably close, the No Build alternative provides no benefits in either airfield operating efficiency or safety and does not meet any of the objectives outlined in the Purpose and Need Statement. This alternative should be dropped from further consideration.

Extend Runway 2. provides an improved operating environment and partially attains Purpose and Need objectives. Most environmental impacts are reasonably similar to alternatives 3 and 4 with the most significant difference associated with construction costs. If funding the preferred alternative becomes prohibitive, it is recommended that this option be viewed as a reasonable compromise.

Runway alternatives 3 and 4 have been shown to be similar in terms of environmental impacts and costs. The maximum extension option has slight advantages from meeting the Purpose and Need objectives and does provide a slightly longer runway and precludes the minor safety issue with the relocated roadway crossing the extended RPZ. For these reasons, the maximum runway extension is the preferred alternative and will be used to assess the remaining major airfield improvements including a parallel taxiway and ILS approach.

* Taken from EA/EIR Alternatives Analysis appendices dated on October 11, 2002.

Do-Nothing Alternatives
Prior to presentation of the various "extend runway" alternatives, it is necessary to describe the "do-nothing" alternative. The "do-nothing" option has several theoretical configurations depending upon interpretation.

First is the literal "do-nothing" that assumes no further improvements from both a safety and capacity standpoint. This would show the runway eventually deteriorating into an unusable condition, which is in direct violation of FAA grant assurances that the Commission is obligated to maintain. Further, it is logical to assume that the airport would close under this scenario, which would result in a significant negative economic impact. Not only would jobs be lost at the airport, but it is reasonable to assume many businesses that currently use the airport would be actively considering relocation to a suitable host community with a similar facility.

The second and somewhat less stringent "do-nothing" option would show a commitment on the part of the Commission to meet safety requirements, but not necessarily address capacity issues. In other words, maintain the current runway without envisioning an extension. At first glance, this would appear to be the preferred option in terms of avoidance of potential environmental and cost impacts. However, there are several major issues that will eventually come into play that will prove this supposition invalid.

Currently, the runway pavement is in good condition and with regular preventative maintenance it should remain in a useable condition at least through the intermediate planning period. At the point the runway requires full rehabilitation, it will be mandated that the existing safety issues that are in non-compliance be addressed. This includes the ground penetrations to the FAR Part 77 primary and transitional surfaces as well as the inadequate extended RSAs. There are several options available that can be implemented under this "do-nothing" alternative.

First, the Airport could arbitrarily raise the existing minimums above ¾ mile, which would reduce the primary surface width to 500 feet. This would reduce the amount of clearing that would be required. The next option would be to provide the extended RSAs within the existing runway configuration. As noted above, this would result in a useable runway length of approximately 3,400 feet for Runway 08-26. Based on current use, most of the critical aircraft would not even be able to operate at PSF. This option would also appear to be in contradiction with existing grant assurances. It also would result in many of the same negative economic impacts for the literal "do-nothing" option.

If the current approach and runway length are to be maintained under a "do-nothing" option, it appears that there will be significant impacts that will have to be addressed at some point in this planning period. With or without an extension, the same amount of clearning will have to be done along the runway to adhere to existing FAR Part 77 requirements. In order to provide the extended RSAs and maintain 5,000 feet of runway, it appears that either South Mountain or Barker Roads will have to be closed, tunneled or relocated. In other words, the only "do-nothing" alternative that appears feasible will result in many of the same impacts discussed in greater detail for the "extend runway" alternatives.

Extend Runway Alternatives
Based on the safety and capacity discussion above, eight "extend runway" alternatives were prepared for Runway 08-26. The following provides an analysis of each alternative and based on this analysis, a preferred alternative is identified.

Each alternative shows areas that will need to be cut or filled to accommodate the runway/taxiway profile and related safety areas. Also shown are areas of cut that will be needed for the runway primary and transition surface and projected limits of the work area. In addition, property that will need to be acquired and, where applicable, road relocations that are required are also shown.

Extend Alternative #1 This alternative provides the maximum runway development scenario without relocating the power lines. It is based on ARC D-II criteria and a full parallel taxiway with the existing 300-foot/taxiway separation maintained. In order to accommodate extended RSAs and provide the preferred 6,300 feet of useable pavement, this alternative requires a relocation of Barker Road. It should be noted that the option of tunneling the roadway under the extended RSA was explored, but due to costs, was dropped in favor of road relocation.

Extend Alternative #2 This alternative also shows the full 6,300 of useable runway and is based on D-II standards. The primary difference from Alternative #1 is that the entire extension is developed easterly into the power line right-of-way. This will required burial or relocation of the lines. It also shows a full-parallel taxiway with the 300-foot separation.

Extend Alternative #3A This alternative is based on D-II standards and shows a full-parallel taxiway at 300 feet. This option differs from 1 and 2 by being constrained on both ends. No impacts are shown for Barker Road and the power lines. Providing the full extended RSAs, there is a net gain of approximately 950 feet of runway length (5,950 feet total runway).

Extend Alternative #3B The major difference between this option and 3A is that the preferred ARC of C-II is used for the RSA design. As shown, this narrows the RSA width from 520 feet to 400 feet, which in turn results in a significantly smaller area of fill that will be required to meet grading requirements. The net useable runway is the same as Alternative #3A (5,950 feet).

Extend Alternative #3C This option is the same as Alternative #3B without the parallel taxiway.

Extend Alternative #4A Using ARC D-II criteria, this alternative depicts the parallel taxiway separated from the runway by the appropriate design standards of 400 feet. It is constrained on both ends the same as Alternative #3A-3C and also results in a useable runway length of 5,950.

Extend Alternative #4B This alternative is the same as Alternative #4A above except that the taxiway is shown on the north side of the proposed extension.

Extend Alternative #4C The final runway alternative developed as part of this analysis is based on the same runway end constraints as Alternatives #3A-4B. It is based on C-II criteria (RSA 400 feet wide) and shows the taxiway at the appropriate design distance of 400 feet.