T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program - FEIS Chapters - PVD

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluationcould accommodate 23 West Coast-capable aircraft, and the 8,300 feet runway could accommodate 21 WestCoast-capable aircraft.Construction CostsAn estimate of construction costs concluded that the 9,350-foot runway option would cost approximately$195 million, compared with $127 million for the 8,700-foot option and $112 million for the 8,300-foot option. 116Most of the cost differential would be associated with land acquisition for construction and mitigation.Summary of the Level 5 Screening Runway Length AnalysisThe purpose of the Runway 5-23 extension is to “enhance the efficiency of the Airport and the New EnglandRegional Airport System, to more fully meet the current and anticipated demand for aviation services.” Thegoal of the runway extension is to maximize the operational flexibility of the airport to the greatest practicalextent to allow non-stop West Coast passenger airline service with a variety of aircraft types. Airlines prefer tohave the ability to operate at maximum gross takeoff weight, or as close as practicable, as much as possiblebecause it represents a full passenger and cargo load, thereby maximizing the profitability of each flight.The flexibility of the airfield to accommodate various aircraft types that are capable of operating non-stop to WestCoast destinations at maximum gross takeoff weight decreases as the length of the proposed runway extensiondecreases. Therefore, the flexibility of Alternative B3 North is less than Alternative B2 because it would be able toaccommodate one less West Coast capable aircraft than Alternative B2 at maximum gross takeoff weight, andtwo fewer aircraft with reductions in belly cargo payload. Alternative B3 North would also cost $15 million, orapproximately 12 percent, less than Alternative B2 and result in substantially similar environmental impacts.RIAC considered that an 8,700 foot runway would accommodate a substantially greater percentage of WestCoast capable aircraft and passengers than an 8,300 foot runway, with only slightly higher costs and residentialparcel acquisitions. 117 Based on the implications of the passenger differential, The RIAC Board decided not tosupport Alternative B3 North because it would decrease the likelihood that an airline would choose tocommence non-stop West Coast service from T.F. Green Airport. The RIAC Board resolution on May 30, 2007states that “an 8300 foot Runway 5-23 conceptual option will not produce the level of service benefits sought tobe achieved through the Airport Improvement Program as generally stated in the EIS Purpose and NeedStatement and will provide only limited potential environmental and costs savings benefits over those providedby an 8700 foot Runway 5-23 alternative.” 118An 8,700-foot runway maximizes the flexibility of the airfield within the constraints surrounding the Airport,and meets the Purpose and Need of the proposed T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program by enhancing theefficiency of the Airport and the New England Regional Airport System, to more fully meet the current andanticipated demand for aviation services. Therefore, Alternative B2 was advanced to the Level 5 environmentalconsequences screening step. Conversely, FAA determined that Alternative B3 North (extending Runway 5-23 to116 The feasibility of modifying Alternative B3 North (by keeping the Runway 23 threshold in place, extending the Runway 5 end, and using EMAS) to avoidrelocation of Airport Road and Main Avenue was evaluated to determine if construction costs could be reduced substantially. However, this modificationwould not be feasible due to the engineering challenges of the grade change in the vicinity of Airport Road.117 See May 11, 2007: RIAC Retreat presentation materials regarding runway length analyses in FEIS Appendix E.4, RIAC Decision Documents.118 See May 30, 2007: Minutes of Meeting, RIAC Board of Directors in FEIS Appendix E.4, RIAC Decision Documents.Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis 3-22 July 2011\\mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH03_Alternatives_JUL_2011.doc