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

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluationpassenger leakage to other airports, such as flight availability, lower fares, and airline flight times. The mostcommon competitive challenges that cause leakage from one airport to another are: 72• Proximity to legacy carrier hub, 73• Proximity to an airport served by an LCC, 74 and• Physical limitations, including runway length.Airport physical limitations that affect leakage and are within RIAC’s control include ease of access (within theairport boundary, including parking facilities), passenger facilities and amenities (terminal building), and airfieldfacilities (such as runway length) to accommodate airline services. Recent examples of projects by RIAC atT.F. Green Airport to enhance the accessibility and attractiveness to New England air passengers include the BruceSundlun Terminal Building (opened in 1996), Terminal Improvement Project (2006-2008; included expansion ofsecurity screening, improved exit lanes and created in-line bag screening, and InterLink (opened in 2010).Proposed projects that would enhance efficiency and ease of access for passengers at T.F. Green Airport that areconsidered in this FEIS include terminal complex, roadway, and parking improvements.The other regional airport in eastern New England, Manchester Airport, has enhanced its accessibility andattractiveness to New England air passengers since 2000 by completing passenger terminal and parking garageimprovements. Manchester Airport also extended its primary runway from 7,000 feet to 9,250 feet in 2003 toaccommodate air cargo demand. Although T.F. Green Airport has substantially more passengers than Manchester(4.4 million versus 3.3 million in fiscal year 2009 75 ), the ability to accommodate non-stop service to the West Coastis restricted by the length of the primary runway (7,166 feet) at T.F. Green Airport. The NERASP considered thisdisparity in primary runway lengths provided by these two “alternate” airports in the Boston metropolitan regionand found that airlines preferred to provide similar services from Manchester and T.F. Green Airports (as evidentin Southwest Airlines’ similar non-stop service from T.F. Green and Manchester Airports to Las Vegas):“Manchester and Providence have similar relationships with Logan in that they function asalternative bases for airlines that compete for passengers from the greater Boston metropolitan area.Airlines prefer to match services from both airports. Inadequate facilities in one location can impedeservice development at both.” 76T.F. Green Airport could enhance the efficiency of the New England Regional Airport System by providing alonger primary runway length for airlines to offer non-stop West Coast service. This would decrease the leakagerate and relieve air passenger demand and aircraft congestion at Logan Airport.As discussed in Section 2.2.2.2, New England Regional Airport System Plan (NERASP) Findings, T.F. Green and LoganAirports have overlapping service areas. Historical data shows that passengers that have traditionally chosenT.F. Green Airport have increasingly chosen to use Logan Airport to reach West Coast destinations directly with72 Passenger Air Service Development Techniques, Airport Cooperative Research Program Report 18, Transportation Research Board, 2009, Page 48.73 Logan Airport serves as a “focus city” and an international gateway airport for American Airlines, a legacy air carrier.74 Logan Airport is served by the following LCC - AirTran, JetBlue, Virgin America, and Southwest Airlines. Manchester Airport is served by Southwest Airlines.75 Final Terminal Area Forecasts, FAA, 2010.76 The New England Regional Airport System Plan, New England Airport Coalition, Fall 2006, Page 11.Chapter 2 – Purpose and Need 2-24 July 2011\\mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH02_P&N_JUL_2011.doc