HomeMy WebLinkAboutDemand/Capacity
.
.
tl n\1 i) '7 ;001;
1\"-' TI (~, .....(Jv
Downstate New York
General Aviation
System Plan
~
Demand/Capacity
.
Interim Report
DI!If.ARD/CAP AClTY MAL lSIS
'!he purpose of this analysis is to determine the sdequacy of the existing network of
airports to accommodate future demand. This determination is based upon the capacity of
three primary functional airport areas: the airfield area, landside area, and surface
access facilities. Airfield capacity is conceme:l with the operational aspects of aircraft
activity in terms of annual and hourly indicators. Landside capacity involves the
aircraft storage capability of the airpor~ Surface access capacity pertains to an
airport's ability to accommodate vehicular traffic from local highway systems.
In order to adequately address these subjects, this chapter was organized in the
follOlling manner:
Airfield Capacity Analysis
Existing Iandside Capacity
. Surface Access Capacity
Comparison of Forecas t Demand to Capacity
Each of these sections are dis cussed in the following pages.
IV-l
Airfield Capacity Analysis
Critical to any aviation system is its ability to satisfy current and projected
aviation demand. Airfield capacity, when compared to forecast levels of operational
activity, provides the foundation from which facility deficiencies or excesses can be
identified and, therefore, becomes the essence of formulating recommendations for future
facilities.
.
This section of Chapter IV delineates the process by which airfield capacity was
obtained and presents the results of the analysis. The di9cussion is organized as
follows:
Capacity Definitions and Methodology
Airports with Published Airfield Capacities
Airfield Capacity Calculation
. Airfield Capacity Results
CAP ACITY DEFDlITIOIlS AND MEntCDOLOG Y
The FAA has recently published Advisory Circular 1 'JJ/ 'JJ60-5, "Airport Capacity and
Delay." This Advisory Circular describes the latest methodologies available for
calculating airfield capacity and delay. In addition, the advisory circular defines
various capacity terms.
There are three primary measures of airfield capacity:
.
Hourly Capacity
Annual Service Volume (ASV)
Annual Delay
Hourly capacity is defined as the maximum number of aircraft operations that an
airfield can accommodate in an hour. Annual service volume (ASV) is the level of annual
aircraft operations that is used as a base for determining annual delay. As the annual
aircraft operations approach the ASV, there is a rapid increase in delay. Successive
hourly demands exceeding the hourly capacity result in unacceptable delays. When the
hourly demand is less than the hourly capacity, aircraft delays will still occur if the
demand within a portion of the time interval exceeds the capacity during the interval. An
average delay of up to four minutes exists when ASV equals annual demand. Annual delay,
which relates operational demand to annual service volume, expresses the total number of
delay......inutes realized during a given year at a specific operational level.
The specific methodologies used in this study include:
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5 Airport Capacity and Delay, U.S.
Department of Transportation (WaShington, D. Co: September, 1983).
IV-2
Airport Requirements Determination in Support of Texas Aviation
System Plan. Texas Transportation Institute (College Station, Texas:
July, 1972).
The FAA methodology was adequate for all of the paved airports in the Downstate network.
For the turf strips, the Texas Transportation Institute's capacity methodology was used,
since these airports require special consideration.
AIRPORTS 1ll11l PUB LISHED AIRFIElD CAP ACITlES
There are nine airports in the Downstate region that already have published airfield
capacities. '!hese are major airports with current master plans. Rather than create a
redundant effort. the master plan capacities were used in this system plan. The following
airports already have calculated airfield capacities:
.
Orange County
Stewart
Westchester County
Flushing
Brookhaven
East Hampton
L. 1. MacArthur
Republic
Suffolk County
The specific hourly capacities and annual service volumes for these airports are presented
later in the chapter in E>ehibit IV.3.
AIRFIELD CAPACITY CALCULATlOO
'!he following factors impact the availability of airport capacity in the Downstate
region:
.
Airfield Layout and RUl1IIay Use
Meteorological Conditions
Aircraft Operational Fleet Mix
Touch-and-Go Operations
Navigational Aids
The capacity methodologies used. required inputs for each of these factors. These factors
are described below along with the inputs used for the network airports.
Airfield Layout and RUl1IIay Use
'!he airfield layout refers to the location and orientation of runways, taxiways, and
terminal area. For airports with more than one runway, the airfield layout is important
since simultaneous use of more than one runway affords greater arrival and departure
capacity than the use of a single runway. Simultaneous use of a multi-runway airport is
IV-3
possible only with a control tower. Thus, the runway usage of towered airports with more
than one runway is significant to the capacity calculation.
In the Downstate region, all of the airports with towers already have published
airfield capacities. Therefore, this analysis is only concerned with airports having a
single runway operating configuration. It should be noted that non-towered airports with
more than one runway must operate using only one runway at a time for safety purposes.
With a single runway, there are only two operating configurations. Depending upon
the location of the exit taxiways the operating direction may or may not be significant.
'!he operating direction is dictated primarily by the prevailing winds at the airport.
Meteorological Conditions
Weather conditions at an airport affect runway utilization due to variations in wind
direction and velocity, together with changes in visibility. The prevailing wind and
visibility conditions serve to determine the directions in which takeoffs and landings may
be conducted, and the frequency of use for each operating configuration. The decision to
use a particular runway is typically made by an air traffic controller at a towered
airport, although the pilot has the option to request a different runway. At a non-
towered airport the pilot will use a wind indicator to determine the direction of take-off
or landing.
The terms visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (UR) are used as
measures of ceiling and visibility. VFR conditions occur when the ceiling is at least
1,000 feet and visibili ty is three miles or greater. During these condi tions pilots fly
on a see-and-be-seen basis. IFR conditions occur when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet
or visibility drops below three miles. In IFR weather, the air traffic control (ATe)
system assllllles responsibility for the safe separation between aircraft.
Wind conditions are of prime importance in determining runway use and orientation.
Where prevailing winds are consistently from one direction, runways are oriented in that
direction. In most areas, however, consistency of wind direction is not found. In such
instances a multiple runway system may be required. '!he Federal /oriation Administration
has established that an airport runway system should provide 95-percent usability for 12
or 15-mile per hour crosswind components, depending upon the characteristics of aircraft
using the airport. For this study, a 12 mph crosswind canponent was used.
Data necessary for conducting weather and wind analyses were obtained from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NO~, National Climatic Center (NeC) in
Asheville, North Carolina. NOAA maintains a networl< of weather observation stations that
record meteorological conditions at many locations. For the Downstate region, weather
observation stations at Poughkeepsie, White Plains, Islip, and Bridgeport, Ct. provided
wind information necessary to conduct a wind-coverage analysis at each networl< airport.
Exhibit IV.2, presented later, indicates total wind coverage for network airport runway
orientations. This information was used as an input to the capacity calculation.
IV-4
Aircraft Operational Fleet Mix
Capacity analysis requires that total annual operations be converted to annual
operations by aircraft classification category. Forecas ts of annual operations were
developed for each network airport, exclusive of the Port-Authority airports, in an
earlier chapter. Further, the necessary fleet mixes were also determined using an airport
survey method.
The capacity and delay model used for the analysis defines aircraft fleet mix in
terms of four classes as presented in Exhibit IV.l. Significant to the analysis are the
level of Class ''e'' and 'n" aircraft operating at each airport. Exhibit IV.2, presented
later, indicates the percentage of operations involving ''e'' or 'n" at network airports to
be analyzed. As shown, Dutchess County and Stormville are the only airports with a
percentage of the fleet mix over l2,!D0 pounds. Thus, the remaining network airports
without published airfield capacities are not affected by large aircraft or jet
operations.
Exhibit tV.1 - OPERATIONAL FLEET MIX-AIRCRAFT CLA~SIFICATION SYSTEM
Class A: Small single-engine, gross weight l2,!D0 pounds or less
Examples: Cessna l72/182
Beech Bonanza
Mooney 201
Piper Cherokee/Warrior
Class B: Small twin-engine, gross weight 12, SOO pounds or less
Examples: Beech Baron
Cessna 402
Cessna Citation I
Beechcraft 99
Mitsubishi lIJ-2
Piper Navajo
Rockwell Shrike
Lear 25
Class C: Large aircraft, gross weight 12, !DO pounds to 300,000 pounds
Examples: Beech King Air 200
Boeing 727
Convair 600
DeHavilland DH-7
Swearingen Metro
Douglas DC-9
Fairchild FH-227
Gulfs tream I II
Lear 35/55
E'mbraer Bandeirante
Class D: Large aircraft, gross weight more than 300,000 pounds
Examples: Airbus A-300/ A-3l0
Boeing 707 -300
Douglas DC-8-60/70
Lockheed L-10ll
Touch-And-Go~erations
A touch-and-go refers to an aircraft landing and immediate takeoff without an
intermediate full stop. 'D:1ese operations are normally associated with training and tend
to occur in higher percentages at smaller airports. Exhibit IV.2 indicates the estimated
level of touch-and-go operations at network airports. Generally, a higher level of touch-
and-go operations - all other factors remaining equal - will boost the O\1erall capacity of
the airport, since a large number can be processed in a relatively short period of time.
IV-5
Exhibit IV.2 - AIRPORT CAPACITY INPUTS AT NETWORK AIRPORTS
Total Wind % Touch IFR % Fleet Mix
County/ Airport Coverage % And Go Capabili ty Over 12.~O Ibs.
Dutc:bea CouIlty
Dutchess County 97.00 35:1: Yes 4%
Sky Acres 94.27 40% Yes 0%
Sky Park 94.64 40% Yes 0%
Stormville 94.14 40% Yes 1%
Oraage CouIlty
Randall 98.67 40% Yes 0%
Warwick 77.63 40% No 0%
Pam- CouI1ty
Mahopac 81.94 ~% No 0%
......1 sniI CouIlty
Ramapo Valley 92.83 30% Yes 0%
Sulli VlID CouIlty
Monticello 96.74 40% Yes 0%
Sullivan County
International 94.42 25:1: Yes 0%
Wurtsboro-
Sullivan 94.12 30% Yes 0%
Ulster County
Kingston-lllster 79.80 40% No 0%
UI.J &l.~ 40% No 0%
Marlboro 79.80 ~% No 0%
Sages 79.65 40% No 0%
Stanton 79.80 40% No 0%
Wallkill &l.~ 40% No 0%
Suffolk County
Bayport 64.38 50% No 0%
Coram 63.94 ~% No 0%
Ess t Moriches 64.20 40% No 0%
Elizabeth Field 92.61 40% Yes 0%
Mattituck 64.38 40% No 0%
Montauk 81.98 30% Yes 0%
Spadaro 64.1 5 40% No 0%
IV-6
Navigational Aids
Significant to the airfield capacity calculation is the exis tence of an instrument
capability; that is, the airport's ability to operate during IFR weather conditions.
Without this capability, the airport can only operate during VFR weather, and as a result,
will have a lower annual service volume than a similar instrument-capable airport.
Exhibit IV.2 indicates whether or not network airports have an instrument capability.
AIRFIELD CAPACITY RESULTS
The fOllowing section presents a summary of airfield capacities for airports in the
Downstate study area. The summary is composed of existing capacities, published in
previously accepted Master Plan studies, and capacities calculated through the use of both
FAA and Texas Transportation Institute methodologie~
As a general rule, airports with air traffic control towers, paved runways, and
parallel taxiways tend to have high capacities, since taxiway systems, in conjunction with
air traffic control tOIlers, allow the efficient use of the runway system. All airports
without air traffic control towers operate as if they had only one runway even if they
have more. Thus, even multiple runway airports without tOIlers do not have significantly
more capacity than do single runway airports. Turf airports, on the other hand, have
seasonal operations, and therefore, indicate a lower ASV than the more developed airport~
Exhibit IV.J presents both previously published capacities and results of the airport
capacity analysis conducted for this study. The airports are listed by county and
indicate the Hourly Capacity and the Annual Service Volume. Later in this chapter, the
capacity will be COIIIpared to expected demand, and potential ''trouble spots" will thereby
be identified.
IV-7
Exhibit IV..3 - HOURLY CAPACITIES AND ANNUAL SERVICE VOI1lMES FOR ALL NETWORK AIRPORTS
Hourly Capacities
Annual
Master Plan Service
County! Airport Source IFR VFR Weighted Vol\Jllle
.
Datc:heaa Couat:y
Dutchess County No 30 127 116 232,100
Sky Acres No 6 128 78 152 , SOO
Sky Park No 6 117 58 115,000
Stormville No 6 126 77 151 ,900
0raDge Couat:y
Orange County Yes 34 72 168,000
Randall No 6 128 81 158,400
Stewart Yes SO 90 2SO,OOO
Warwick No 72 46 109,900
l'ucDaa Couat:y
Mahopac No 56 38,900
Jkt<:l< 1 ...d Couaty
Ramapo Valley No 6 125 76 1 SO ,000
Sulli_ Couaty
Monticello No 6 72 44 87 ,200
Sullivan County
International No 6 117 71 140,100
Wurtsboro-Sullivan Co. No 6 112 68 134,600
Ulster Couat:y
Kingston-Ulster No 72 46 113,000
LIIJ No 72 46 114,000
Marlboro No 56 38,000
Sages No 72 46 112,700
Stanton No 72 46 113,000
Wallkill No 72 46 114,000
Westc:heater Couat:y
Westchester County Yes 56 88 210,000
IV-8
Exhibit IV.1 - HOURLY CAPACITIES AND ANNUAL SERVICE VOWMES FOR ALL NETWORK AIRPORTS
Hourly Capacities Annual
Master Plan Service
County/ Airport Source IFR VFR Weighted Vol....e
.
Queeas Couaty
Flushing Yes 76 149,000
John F. Kennedy Yes 53 82 NA
La Guaniia Yes 60 62 NA
Suffolk Couaty
Bayport No 56 25,700
Brookhaven Yes 137 270,000
Coram No 56 25,700
East Hampton Yes 38 109 70 108,300
East Moriches No 72 46 90, 900
Elizabeth Field No 6 72 44 86,400
L. I. MacArthur Yes 53 183 144 303,000
Mattituck No 72 46 91,200
Montauk No 6 107 53 105,100
Repub lie Yes 20 106 270,000
Spadaro No 72 46 90 , 800
Suffolk CoUnty Yes 143 127 230,000
N.A. - Not Available
IV-9
Ezistiug LaDdside Capacity
This section assesses the landside espacity of the existing network of airports. Its
purpose is to provide an indication of an airport's overall ability to accommodate
facilities in four areas:
.
general aviation terminal space
hangar and tie-down space
general aviation apron area
automobile parking area
The information in this section will be used, along with information in the sections
on Airside Capacity and Surface Access Capacity, to determine an airport's espacity to
satisfy its foreesst demand, and then to determine the facilities necessary to meet the
demand .
The existing facilities at the airports are listed in the Airport Profiles section of
the Inventory Chapter.
ME11llDOLOGY
The landside espacities as determined in this section are based upon the minimum land
requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 1 '!f)/5300-4B, Utility
Airports, atapeer 5. The Circular gives the recommended uiinimlllll acreage for Basic Utility
(BU) and General Utility (GU) airports by dividing the airport into three areas - the
landing, approach, and building areas.
The landing area includes the runway, safety area, taxiways and lateral clearances to
building restriction lines.
The approach area includes the property within the runway clear zone, between the
building restriction lines and land that may be required for airport hazard removal and
approach protection. As a minimum, the airport should have under its control the land
within the building restriction lines and that required for airport hazard removal and
approach protection.
The building area includes all areas beyond the building restriction line. that is,
any fixed base operator facility, I-hangars, tie-downs, transient parking apron,
automobile parking, access road, and utilities.
The landside capacity is herein expressed in terms of the land which remains
available for basing aircraft, either in hangars or by tie-downs after land has been set
aside for the landing area, approach area and the remaining portions of the building area,
and has been calculated as described. First, the landing area at each airport was
determined. The entire recommended acreage was set aside even if the airport presently
does not have a taxiway or have the recommended lateral clearances to the building
restrictions lines. This method has been adopted to allow for the standards with respect
to taxiways, safety areas and building restriction lines to be met at a future date; the
approach areas were then estimated. The entire recommended acreage was set aside if the
approach area is all on airport property. If not all the approach area is on airport
property, the portion on the property was estimated. This was necessary to avoid
IV-IO
misleading estimates of the acreage rema1n1ng for basing aircraft. In the next step, the
building area acreage allocated to the fixed base operator, transient parl<ing apron,
automobile parking, access road, utilities, and administration building was assumed to be
one-half of the recommended acreage.
Then, the number of the acres of the landing area, the approach area on airport
property, and the building area were then summed and compared to the airport property
acreage. Any remaining acreage was assumed to be svailable for basing aircraft.
It was assumed that each acre of available land could accommodate 16 based aircraft.
This assumption allows for the 300 square yards per airplane recommended by the FAA for
most based aircraft. Although this number would be somewhat lower for hangared aircraft
and larger aircraft, it was felt that the use of 16 aircraft produced reasonably accurate
results for determining overall airport capacity.
Using this methodology means that the ability of the airport to meet the capacity
standards in the areas of general aviation terminal space, automobile parking, and apron
areas ia assured by the land in the building area set aside before the airport's ability
to base aircraft is determined.
LANDSmE CAPACITY DETERMINATIONS
The majority of the airports in the existing network have sufficient landside
capacity to accommodate at least the forecast demand. Others, however may not be able to
accommodate the year 200 5 forecast demand or have limitations 011 how many aircraft can be
based there. Those airports with capacity limitations are considered below.
.
Bayport - The airport has two runways and most of the approach area is
beyond the airport property line. After calculating e land needed for
the landing and building areas, and the portion of the approach area
on airport property, the remaining land indicates about 96 aircraft
can be based at the airport.
Coram - The land area available for the airport is somewhat flexible;
we have assumed 50 acres. Most of the approach area is not 011 airport
property. Under these circumstances, we have estimated that
approximately 128 aircraft could be based here.
Flushing - The current master plan recommends a three runway
configuration for the airport; it also recognizes that some buildings
will violate the building restriction lines. The plan forecasts that
96 aircraft will be attracted to the airport if it is improved. Even
being extremely conservative in calculating the land required for the
runways and approach areas, there is very little land remaining for
based aircraft. Therefore, we have assumed that the limits on based
aircraft will be the 58 forecast in this study.
.
Mahopac - This airport, after allowing for the recommended acreage for
necessary facilities, will be able to accommodate 32 aircraft,
sauewhat fewer than its year 200 5 forecast of 42 aircraft.
IV-ll
Marlboro - The airport property consists of only 27 acres, far fewer
than the recommended minimUID for a basic utility airport. Since only
seven based aircraft are forecast for the year 2005, they can be
accommodated at the airport. But the ability of the airport to be
developed to FAA standards is questionable.
Mattituck - This airport consists of even fewer acres than Marlboro,
18, and the 2005 forecast of based aircraft is much higher, 45. The
airport currently has 23 based aircraft. If the recommended standards
are applied, the airport will not be able to accommodate the forecast
based aircraft.
Montauk - The airport. property is only 40 acres, but has a runway of
almost 3,500'. The recommended landing area for a runway that length
is itself 36 acres. However, very little of the approach area is on
airport property. It is possible that the airport will be able to
accommodate its year 2005 forecast of 29 aircraft, but it will be at
the expense of other building area recaDllll!nded facilities.
Ramapo Valley - It is difficult to determine the extent of the airport
property at this time. There are currently plans to remove the
building area from north to south of the runway and to make the land
north of the runway available for non-aviation land uses. When this
occurs, the airport will not be able to accommodate its forecast based
aircraft. For purposes of this study, we have assumed that the
airport will accommodate about 160 aircraft. A master plan for the
airport has just begun and it will more accurately determine the
landside capaci ty cif the airport in the near future.
Republic - This airport is owned by the State and operated by the New
York Transportation Department through a contract with Lockheed Air
Terminal of New York, Ine. A master plan update to take place in 1985
will address Republic's role. Preliminary indications are that the
airport's capacity to accommodate based aircraft is limited to an
estimated 750 aircraft.
Spadaro - The airport property consists of only 15 acres and it had
17 based aircraft in 1982. The year 200 5 forecast is for 33 based
aircraft. Given the deficiency of the airport property and its
consequent inability to meet the recommended minimUID land requirements
in the three categories, it is unlikely it will be able to accommodate
the fore cas t demand.
Stanton - The airport property is not adequate to meet the minimum
land requirements recommended for a basic utility airport. It had 7
based aircraft in 1982 and is forecast to have 13 in the year 200 5.
In view of the small number of based aircraft and of forecast
operations, we have assUlDed the airport will be able to accommodate
the based aircraft without meeting recommended landside facility
requirements in terminal space, automobile parking and apron areas.
.
IV-12
Surface Access Capacity
For the purposes of this study, the surface access capacity analysis was limited to
on-airport access roads. On-airport access roads channel traffic from exterior roadways
to airport facilities such as parking and terminals. If exterior highways are adequate,
which is the case for most network airports, on-airport access roads are the limiting
factor or cons':raint to vehicular flow to the airport. In this section, network airports
are investigated for a preliminaty look at the adequacy and possible congestion problems
of on-airport access roads.
Access read capacity is the maximum number of vehicle movements possible, for a given
time periOd, under a spec1fied set of environmental and traffic demand conditions.
Capacity figures presented herein provide a conservative estimate of general access road
traffic capacity. Specific road design and traffic conditions must be identified to
determine definitive capacity figures for those airports with potential access road
congestion problems.
In general, network airports have access road systems consisting of single or multi-
lane loops carrying traffic to the front of tbe terminal building with exits to parking
areas, or collectors or narrow driveways leading to the airport parking lot. Three
capacity categories have been designated for network airport access rozs (200, 400, or
SOO vehicles per lane per hour). A description of these categories follows along with a
list of the network airports included in each category. The two large commercial
airports, JFK and LGA, are excluded because ot their low level of general aviation
activity.
500 Vehicles/Lane/Bour (VUl):l
Loop access roz to terminal
Two one-way lanes
Exits to parking, general aviation, and air cargo areas
Moderate interference fran rozside
Stable traffic flow
Continuous passing
No stopping except at terminal front
Airports in the SOO VLB category include: Brookhaven, Dutchess County, Long Island
MacArthur, and Westchester County.
1
American Association of State Bighway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on
Design of Urban Highways aDd Arterial Streets, 1973 (Washington D.C.: AASHTO,
1973) .
.
IV-13
400 Vehicles/lane/HourI
Single lane loop access road to terminal
,
Exits to parking, general aviation, and air cargo areas
No stopping except at terminal front
Moderate interference from roadside
Stable traffic flow
Airports in the 400 VLH category .include: Bayport, Stewart*, Suffolk County, and Sullivan
County.
200 Vehicles/lane/HourI
Single lane collector or "driveway" to and from parking area
About 10-..ph speed limi t
Parking on either side of road
All remaining network airports are included in this 200 VLH category.
*
A new on-airport access road is planned for Stewart as well as Flushing Airport.
1
American AssoC1ation of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on
Design of lkban Highways and Arterial Streets, 1973 (Washington D.C.: AASHTO,
1973).
.
IV-14
CaDpariSClIl of Forecast n.......I to Capacity
.
In order to determine where potential capacity overruns are likely to occur, forecast
demand was compared to the capacities established in this chapter. Exhibit IV.4 presents
a comparison of airfield capacity and forecast operational demand.
.
Emibit IV.4 - COMPARISON OF OPERATIONAL CAPACITY AND FORECAST DEMAND
Operational 2005
Airfield Airfield surplusl
County I Airport Capaci ty Operations (Deficit)
Dutc:bess ~
Dutchess County 231,100 192,300 39,800
Sky Acres 152,3>0 64,640 frI,860
Sky Park 11 5,000 17,340 97 ,660
Stcn:mville 151,900 74,000 77,900
Onage CooIItty
Orange County 168,000 151,080 16,920
Randall 158,400 41 ,300 117,100
Stewart 23>,000 185,560 64,440
Warwick 109,900 20,800 89,100
l'at:Iwa CooIItty
Hahopac 38,900 20,160 18,740
~1....d County
llamapo Valley 13>,000 262,260 (112,260)
Sullivan County
Monticello 87 ,200 2,100 85,100
Sullivan County Int'l 140 ,100 32,640 107,460
Wurtsboro-Sullivan Co. 134,600 130,240 4,360
Ulster ~
Kings ton-Uls ter 113,000 25,63> 87,3 3>
UIJ 114,000 7,130 106,frlO
Marlboro 38,000 33> 37,63>
Sages 112,700
Stanton 113 ,000 4,420 108,580
Wallkill 114,000 4,400 109,600
-
IV-15
I;xhibit IV.4 - COMPARISON OF OPERATIONAL CAPACITY AND FORECAST DEMAND (Con't.)
Operational 2005
Airfield Airfield Surp lust
County/ Airport Capacity Operations ( Deficit)
.
Westdleater Colmty
Westchester County 210,000 317,530 (107,530)
Queeas Colmty
Flushing 149,000 58,000 91,000
John F. Kennedy N/A N/A N/A
La Guardia N/A N/A N/A
Suffolk CoaIlty
Bayport 25,700 20,710 4,990
Brookhaven 270,000 254,810 15,190
Coram 25,700 400 25,300
East Hampton 108,300 97,870 10,430
East Moriches 90,900 8,125 82,775
Elizabeth Field 86,400 29,200 57,200
L. I. MacArthur 303,000 43 5, 770 (132,770)
Matti tuck 91 ,200 31,9!C 59,2!C
Montauk 105,100 17,400 87 , 700
Republic 270,000 386 ,320 (116,320)
Spadaro 90,800 2,310 88,490
Suffolk County 230,000 232,480 (2,480)
In the exhibit, operational deficits for the year 200 5, if not allocated to another
nearby airport with surplus capacity, are simply considered ''unserved demand". Thus, if
capacity relief is not a part of an airport's future development plans, this unserved
demand can be used to identify areas with high demand potential.
Exhibit IV.5 presents a summary of lands ide capacity constraints. In this exhibit,
only airports that are constrained with respect to year 200 5 forecast demand are included.
IV-l 6
Exhibit IV. '5 - COMPARISON OF T.ANDSIDE CAPACITY AND BASED AIRCRAFT DEMAND
2005
County / Landside Based Based Surplus/
Airport Name Aircraft Capacity Aircraft (Deficit)
Bayport 96 109 ( 13)
Coram 128 8 120
Flushing 58 58 0
Mahopac 32 42 ( 10)
Marlboro 7 7 0
Mattituck 30 45 ( 15)
Mol1tauk 29 29 0
Ramapo Valley 160 282 (122)
Republic 750 1,014 (264)
Spadaro 30 33 ( 3)
Stanton 13 13 0
Based upon the exhibit presented above, along with Exhibit IV.4, a set of preliminary
findings can be discussed. First, assUllling no capacity improvements in either the airs ide
or lands ide areas, the constraining factor is that which limits the airport the greates t.
In other words, if airfield capacity can accommodate more activity than the 1.andside can
handle, the landside capacity is then used to describe that airport's overall capacity.
'!he converse of this situation is treated the same way.
Assuming no airfield or landside improvements, and assUllling no changes existing
aircraft basing patterns, unaccommodated demand can be expected to occur, by the year
2005, in the service areas of the following airports:
. Bayport Republic
L. I. MacArthur . Spadaro
. Mahopac . Suffolk County
. Mattituck . Westchester County
. Ramapo Valley
Capacity shortfalls at these airports will be considered in the Alternatives Analysis
chapter. If nothing can be done to improve capacity in the alternatives analysis, it will
simply be sham as unserved demand.
,
IV-17