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

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation• Alternative B3 North – Extend Runway 5-23 North to a total of 8,300 FeetAlternative B3 North (Figure 3-7) includes a runway extension that would extend Runway 5-23 as far northas possible without impacting the stream channel of Buckeye Brook. The maximum runway length possiblegiven these constraints is 8,300 feet. The runway extension would be located on airport property, but wouldstill require the full relocation of Airport Road. Fully Relocated Airport Road was designed to remainoutside of the Runway 23 End RPZ in compliance with FAA guidance at that time. Runway 5-23 would beextended approximately 600 feet north and 530 feet south to a total length of 8,300 feet by shifting therunway thresholds both north and south. The Runway 16-34 safety enhancements, Fully Relocated AirportRoad, and the Integrated Cargo Facility would be the same as Alternative B1 and B2. EMAS would be usedat the Runway 23 and 34 Ends.The difference between the 8,300-foot and 8,700-foot runway alignments described above occurs entirely at theRunway 5 End. Alternatives B2 and Alternative B3 North are shown in Figures 3-6 and 3-7.Step 1 of this screening process focuses on an analysis of runway length. The 9,350-foot option is represented byAlternative B1, the 8,700-foot option is represented by Alternative B2, and the 8,300-foot option is representedby Alternative B3 North. The 8,300 South Configuration (Alternative B3 South) is a more recent variation andwas not evaluated in Step 1 of the Level 5 screening process.3.7.1.1 Runway Length Analysis: Comparison of Alternatives B2 and B3 NorthFrom an airport planning perspective, the utility of a runway system must be viewed in terms of the entirecurrent and anticipated fleet mix of aircraft. In the case of T.F. Green Airport, RIAC has proposed enhancementsthat would accommodate demand for non-stop passenger airline services to West Coast markets to enhance theefficiency of the New England Regional Airport System (by reducing leakage from the T.F. Green catchmentarea to Logan; see Sections 2.2.2.4 and 2.3.2.1 for further details). The proposed enhancements would also offerflexibility for airlines to provide their current service with a variety of aircraft types. As noted in the NERASP,“it is important that airport facilities maintain the ability to accommodate and quickly adjust to increases indemand in order to support cycles of economic expansion. This requires leading rather than reacting topassenger requirements.” 109FAA’s Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, provides guidance todetermine recommended runway lengths based on the critical aircraft type. For airport projects receiving federalfunding, the use of the AC is mandatory. 110 The goal of the FAA guidance is “to construct an available runwaylength for new runways or extensions to existing runways that is suitable for the forecasted critical designairplanes.” 111 The critical design aircraft type is the one that meets the “substantial use threshold” 112 and require thelongest runway length at maximum certificated takeoff weight. Planning for runway length requirements basedon the most demanding aircraft (in terms of departure runway length requirements) allows an airport to offer the109 The New England Regional Airport System Plan, New England Airport Coalition, 2006, Page 19.110 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design; the use of FAA AC 150/5325-4B to determine appropriate runwaylengths is also recommended in FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Change 1, Airport Master Plans, section 805.b(3), May 1, 2007.111 Ibid, Page 1.112 500 or more annual existing or anticipated itinerant operations at the airport (landings and takeoffs are considered as separate operations).Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis 3-19 July 2011\\mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH03_Alternatives_JUL_2011.doc