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

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluationaviation system efficiency in the medium and long-haul markets. Highway travel times for medium and longhaulmarkets are too long to be a reasonable and feasible alternative to commercial air service. Highwaytransportation has been eliminated from further review since it does not meet the service demands of T.F. GreenAirport or otherwise achieve the Purpose and Need.3.3.4 Candidate Alternative: Non-Construction AlternativesThese alternatives examined the feasibility of new technologies in meeting the Purpose and Need of theT.F. Green Airport Improvement Program. The alternatives evaluated were new communication technologiesand new aircraft technologies. Two-way video technology has been available for nearly 30 years, with limitedimpact on the transportation industry, although recent improvements in the affordability, quality, and speed oftransmission have made video-conferencing a more accepted alternative to face-to-face meetings.Telecommunications and video conferencing do not reduce the current and anticipated demand for long-haulcommercial air service to the West Coast. Telecommunication and video conferencing will not enhance theefficiency of the airport system, and these new technologies have been eliminated from further review. Newtechnological improvements in aircraft design were considered to determine their viability in enhancing airportsafety or meeting anticipated demand at T.F. Green Airport. New aircraft technology includes features that aretypically intended to improve aircraft performance, improve fuel efficiency, and reduce operating costs. Whilenew technology has improved the performance characteristics and range of certain aircraft types operating inthe fleet at T.F. Green Airport, the present runway length does not allow most aircraft at their maximum grosstakeoff weight to reach West Coast markets. Without a lengthened runway, new aircraft technology, by itself,cannot meet anticipated demand at T.F. Green Airport and thus cannot meet the Purpose and Need. For thesereasons, new aircraft technologies as an alternative to construction have been eliminated from further review.3.3.5 Candidate Alternative: On-Airport AlternativesOn-Airport Candidate Alternatives program elements were developed and analyzed to address safety andefficiency needs at T.F. Green Airport. The concepts for several of the on-Airport Candidate Alternatives arevariations of those that were assessed in the 2002 T.F. Green Master Plan Update and the 2004 T.F. Green MasterPlan Supplement. The On-Airport Candidate Alternatives were evaluated with respect to current FAA airportdesign criteria. The most important FAA design standards deal with the safety areas listed in Table E.3-3 ofDEIS Appendix E, Alternatives Analysis. The FAA received input from state and federal agencies, the City ofWarwick, and the public on the preliminary findings of the Draft Alternatives Analysis Chapter. 99 Based on thatinput, the elements that were re-evaluated include the on-Airport roadways, off-Airport roadways, structuredparking, fuel farm expansion, Integrated Cargo Facility, and Runway 5-23 extension and safety areas. There-evaluations of these program elements are included in this chapter, and additional information is provided inDEIS Appendix E, Alternatives Analysis, Supporting Attachment E.A.1, Runway Length Analysis and SupportingAttachment E.A.2a, Supplemental Analysis. Figure 3-4 identifies the proposed on-Airport development candidatealternatives. Table 3-1 presents a summary of the results of the Level 1 Screening Candidate Alternatives thatsuccessfully passed the screening requirements and were evaluated as Preliminary Alternatives in the Level 2Screening (Section 3.4).99 The FAA received input through formal agency and city review of the draft chapter as well as oral and written public input received at public meetings in 2006.Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis 3-8 July 2011\\mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH03_Alternatives_JUL_2011.doc