Airport Master Plan 2012 - City of Waterville

Table 4.4
General Aviation Terminal/FBO Alternatives Analysis
Analysis Factor
Engineering
Operational
Environmental
Land Use
Engineering
Operational
Environmental
Land Use
Engineering
Operational
Environmental
Land Use
Engineering
Operational
Environmental
Land Use
Impact
F0: No-Build (Status Quo)
Not Applicable.
Limited – There may be space constraints in the long-term.
None – no change.
None – no change.
F1: Construct New FBO connected to Phase II of Terminal Apron
Requires design and construction of new conventional hangar and redesign of
adjacent stormwater facilities; Apron A-1 is eligible for federal and state funding
under AIP
Maintains FBO activity in a “campus” type environment
Additional impact on stormwater and associated impacts from building footprint
None – no change.
F2: Upgrade and Utilize Old Telford location for FBO operations
Somewhat significant, Requires total apron rehab and limited access
improvements. Apron is eligible for federal and state funding under AIP.
Limited Improvement- Fueling Operations remain south of Runway 14-32.
Segregates corporate AC from general aviation use
No-Change
None – no change.
F3: Develop FBO facilities off of existing Runway 14 approach end
Significant construction cost required by taxiway, ramp areas, access road and
development of utilities to support alternative.
Separates activity from existing fueling; somewhat isolated. Segregates corporate
AC from general aviation use
Additional impact on stormwater and associated impacts from building footprint
Converts closed runway area to developable airport property.
Terminal / FBO Alternatives Analysis Conclusion
Alternative F-1 offers several benefits including the fact that the Phase II apron (Alternative A-1) was
designed for heavy aircraft including Portland cement concrete pads intended as “hard stands” for the
static loading of the Gulfstream G-V and other similar heavy aircraft. Another benefit of this alternative is
that a future developer only needs to invest in an FBO building and not the apron, which is eligible for
AIP funding from the FAA. Alternative F-2 is associated with Alternative A-2 which was eliminated
from further consideration. Alternative F-3 was eliminated as a result of keeping Runway 14-32 open.
Therefore the City chose to proceed with Alternative F-1 as well as future aviation development in Area
“G” as well.
4.5 Aircraft Hangar Alternatives
T-hangars are single-unit aircraft hangars, while conventional hangars are generally large multi-aircraft
structures. T-hangars and private box type hangars differ from larger conventional hangars in that they do
not generally need very much apron-front access. As mentioned, apron frontage is a premium airport
space and should be judiciously used. T-hangars need taxiway or taxilane access and can be arranged in
rows with a taxilane between every two rows. Rows of T-hangars for small aircraft require 75 ft. of
separation for one way traffic between them and 125 ft. for two way traffic. In citing hangars, attention
The City of Waterville Maine
Alternatives Analysis – Page 4-12
Airport Solutions Group, LLC & The Louis Berger Group, Inc. December 2011