Vance Brand Municipal Airport Airport Master Plan.
-
Upload
macey-judkins -
Category
Documents
-
view
233 -
download
4
Transcript of Vance Brand Municipal Airport Airport Master Plan.
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Vance Brand Municipal Airport
Airport Master Plan
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Fore
cast
No.
of B
ased
Air
craf
t
2001 2006 2011 2021
Based Aircraft Forecast
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
AIRPORT AND RUNWAY DATA
Airport elevation . . . . . . .. . . . . . 5055 feet
Mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month 88.00 F.
Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation . . 24 feet
EXISTING RUNWAY LENGTH . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 4800 feet
RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN
Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats
75 percent of these small airplanes . . . . . . . . 4610 feet
95 percent of these small airplanes . . . . . . . . 6200 feet
100 percent of these small airplanes . . . . . . . .6360 feet
Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats . . . 6360 feet
Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less
75% of large airplanes at 60% useful load 6860 feet
Source: FAA software.
Runway Length Guidelines
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Preliminary Alternatives
• Alternative 1 – Do-Nothing (Maintain 4,800’ length)
• Alternative 2 – Extend runway to 6,360’
• Alternative 3 – Extend runway to 6,860’
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Final Alternatives
• Alternative 1 – Do-Nothing (Maintain 4,800’ length)
• Alternative 4 – Extend to 5,650’ (adds 850’ fully usable length and does not relocate N. 75th Street)
Note: Alternatives 2 and 3 were eliminated from further consideration by vote of the Airport Advisory Board. Alternative 4 was added following the first public information meeting and third regular meeting of the AAB.
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Alternative 1: Do Nothing
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Alternative 4: Extend Runway (adds 850’ fully usable length)
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Evaluation Criteria• Safety• Ability to meet aviation needs• Airspace• Surface Access• Environmental Factors• Availability of Utilities• Land Requirements• Costs• Community Compatibility• Local Acceptability
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Evaluation Results
• Safety: Alternative 1 does not address the needs of larger aircraft types that currently use the airport e.g., Cessna Citation Bravo, KingAir 90, etc. Alternative 4 provides additional distance for take-off, landing, and emergency operations.
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Evaluation Results
• Meet Aviation Needs: Alternative 1 (current length 4,800’) meets the needs of 75 percent of small airplanes with <10 passenger seats. Alternative 4 provides (length of 5,650’) nearly 90 percent of the runway length recommended for these small airplanes.
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
• Airspace: Alternative 1 does not alter existing airspace requirements. The change imposed by Alternative 4 is to small to cause any major disadvantage.
Evaluation Results
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Airport Influence Area: Do-Nothing and Alternative 4
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Evaluation Results
• Surface Access: Neither Alternative requires an disruption of the surface access system, notably North 75th Street, in the area of the airport.
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Evaluation Results• Environmental Factors: Alternative 1
enjoys an advantage because it does not require any development. Alternative 4 would generate construction impacts (dust, etc.) that will need to be mitigated. Alternative 4 will also require land acquisition (approx. 27 acres and relocation of one affected owner. Noise exposure exceeding 65 Ldn would not extend beyond proposed airport land and easements.
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Evaluation Results
• Availability of Utilities: The alternatives are considered equal with respect to this criterion. Neither will impose significant new requirements.
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Evaluation Results
• Land Requirements: Alternative 1 does not require land acquisition. Acquisition of avigation easements would be recommended. Fee simple acquisition of approximately 27 acres and one residence would be recommended under Alternative 4.
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
• Costs: Alternative 1 does not require capital expenditures for runway extension. Estimated costs for Alternative 4 are $2.4 million ($2.16 FAA; $120,000 state; and $120,000 local)
Evaluation Results
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Evaluation Results
• Community Compatibility: Alternative 4 requires no zoning or land use changes and community compatibility impacts are minimal. It requires no zoning or land use changes. Alternative 1 has no additional compatibility effects.
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
• Local Acceptability: Alternative 1 is preferred by opponents of airport expansion. Alternative 4 is a compromise generating less opposition than more ambitious runway extension alternatives.
Evaluation Results
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Conclusions
• Alternative 1 imposes fewer impacts because it makes no improvements.
• Alternative 4 addresses aviation safety for airplanes that use the airport now and in the future.
• Consultant’s and AAB’s recommendation: Alternative 4.
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
South Side Airport DevelopmentCurrent and Proposed Master Plan
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
VANCE BRAND AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT
• Compatible Commercial Development Options:– Aviation Manufacturing Operations– Non-Aviation Manufacturing Operations– Community College Aviation Technical
School– Aviation Paint Shop– Aircraft Maintenance Facility
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
VANCE BRAND AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT
• Compatible Commercial Development Options:– Aircraft Restoration Service– Fixed Base Operator– Avionics Repair Facilities– Commercial Restaurant – Aviation Related Service Operations
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
South Side Airport DevelopmentCurrent and Proposed Master Plan
PROPOSED
FRCC
CAMPUS
(30 acres)
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Airport Noise Abatement Procedures: Updated in 2002.
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
Traffic pattern altitude 6,050 MSL (raised 150 feet)
• Pilots should climb to at least 500 hundred feet AGL after takeoff before turning crosswind.
• Pilots are requested to avoid making touch and go landings at the Longmont Municipal Airport before 8AM and after 8 PM.
• Avoid flying over the city and outlying residential areas as much as possible.
New Procedures Include:
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
•Airport Master Plan Summary and Notes:
• The Airport Master Plan is a planning tool to help guide the future of the airport for all aspects of aviation and community needs. This is a ten-year plan that will be updated again in the future.
• The projects contained in the Airport Master Plan are unfunded at this time.
Vance
Bra
nd M
uni c
i pal A
irport
•Airport Master Plan Schedule:
• Staff and AAB to receive City Council direction on January 7, 2003.
• Approximately 6 weeks for completion of final draft.
• Final “Draft” of the Master Plan with the Council chosen options to be presented in March 2003.
• Anticipate adoption of final Master Plan by Resolution in April 2003.