The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutIndentification & Evalutation of Aviation System Alternatives NO\} 2 'll985 I . Downstate New York General Aviation System Plan ~ . Identification and Evaluation of , Aviation System Alternatives >> Interim Report IDENl'IFICA:rION AND EV ALUA:r:rCll' OF AVIAnON SYSTEK ALmRNATIVES This chapter synthesizes all of the findings of the previous work elements and presents airport system alternatives for evaluation. These alternatives prOlTide the means of identifying the most efficient solutions to expected aviation developments in Downstate New Yorl< over the next twenty years. . .. To adequately address these issues. and to explore solutions to aviation growth. this chapter was organized to include the following sections: Identification of Alternatives Airport Roles Ability to Satisfy Forecast Demand Evaluation of Airspace Utilization Evaluation of Surface Access Evaluation of EtII1ironmental Effects Evaluation of System Deve10pnent Costs Sociopolitical Acceptability Summat:y The process of identifying alternatives consists first of exam=g the existing networl< of airports. and then of generating alternative systems of airports. A networl< of airports comprises all existing public use aviation facilities that can accommodate based aircraft. The regional airport networl< was identified in the inventot:y chapter. As described later in this chapter. the existing system of airports incorporated fewer airports than the existing network, due to the use of system identification criteria. Once the alternative systems have been identified. evaluation criteria such as facility requirements. airspace utilization. surface access. etll1ironmental compatibility. system development costs. and sociopolitical acceptability are applied to each alternative. The results are summarized at the end of this chapter. .. . V-l Identificati.cm of Alten>ati.ves This section identifies the general aviation system alternatives used to develop a recommended general aviation system plan for the Downstate Region. Each alternative. in turn. is evaluated to ascertain its ability to accommodate future aviation demands. . Additionally. other factors such as compatibility with existing environmental conditions, airspace considerations. system development costs. and sociopolitical acceptability are all taken into conaideration in the evaluation process. .. Using a system planning approach. three system alternatives were initially developed. These three alternatives are described as: The "No-Developnent" Alternative The "Expansion of Existing System" Alternative :!he ''New Airports" Alternative The "No-Development" alternative provides a basis for judging the adequacy of the existing system to meet future air transportation demands in the Downstate Region. As the name implies. no changes or improvements were planned for the existing system of airports throughout the period. In this scenario. a community could elect to let an airport operate as effectively as posaible with no major capital projects. This alternative would allow for normal maintenance of existing facilities. The second alternative, "Expanaion of Existing System", was examined in order to evaluate the existing system's ability to accommodate projected demand through airport ex:pengion, where possible. A third alternative, "New Airports", was also considered. This system of airports is composed of expanded existing airports and new proposed reliever airports, where necessa>:y. As explained later in the analysis. the "Expansion of Existing System" alternative had to be eliminated since expansion of airports with capacity problems proved either politically of physically infeasible. This left essentially two alternatives: the "No- Development" and ''New Airports". :!he ''No-Development'' was then modified slightly to provide a basis for comparison to the ''New Airports" alternative. This modification involved changing from "No-Development" to "Limited-Development". The "Limited- Development" option permits minor projects and groundside improvements but does not suggest SIr;! major airfield capital projects that would increase airport operational capacity. Thus, the normal developmental infilling activity would be permitted but no airfield expansions. . Before evaluation of these alternatives could be performed, the airports comprising each had to be identified. :!his was accomplished using criteria and minimum standards to define the alternative system. This process is described in the following section. . AVIATION SYSTEM ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS An airport "system" implies a group of interdependent airports regularly interacting toward a unified goal. Each airport in a system. therefore, has a specific function. Definition of the system of airports, then, is the first step toward the identification and evaluation of alternative solutions for future aviation demand. V-2 The major task in the identification of each alternative was the definition of the number and type of airports composing an aviation system. Therefore. selection of airports that would be included in the system for each alternative was based on three primary standards. . All system airports must be open for public use. Privately-owned airports are eligible for system inclusion if they are open for public use. .. System airports should be located to provide the following geographic coverage standards: Availability of a transport airport within 45 minutes driving time of all major metropolitan areas in the Downstate Region. Availability of a utility class (or larger) airport within 45 minutes driving time of all population centers with 2.500 persons or more. System airports should have or be projected to have 10 or more based aircraft during the planning period. The standards have been listed in rank order so that if there is ever a conflict between the second and third standards. the geographic coversge standard would govern. The standards are supported by the goals and objectives that were stated at the outset of the study. In addition. they recognize the economic importance and service implications of an airport's proximity to a cCllllllllIlity. Using these minimum standards for system eligibility. an existing system of airports was developed from the existing network of airports. In addition. the 1978 Tri-State Regional Aviation System Plan (RASP) was examined to ensure that the current system plan took advantage of all previous system analyses performed for Downstate airports. This examination was helpful in validating the selection of an existing system of airports. Alternative general aviation systems were then generated by modifying the existing syst"'" for three different concepts. Identification of Alternative 1 - The ''Limited-Developnent'' Alternative As described previously. the "Limited-Development" alternative is synonymous wit!., the existing system of airports. with no airfield expansions. Application of system standards to the existing networl< of airports yields the following system of airports: . Dutchess County Dutchess County Sky Acres Sky Park Stormvil1e Ulster County Kingston-Ulster L.H.J. Sages Stanton Wallkil1 . Orange County Orange County Randall Stewart Wandck Queens County Flushing John F. Kennedy La Guardia V-3 Putnam County Mahopac Rockland Coun ty Ramapo Valley . Su1li van County Monticello Sullivan County Int'l. Wurtsboro-Su1livan County Suffolk County Bayport Brookhaven East Hampton ~st Moriches Elizabeth L. I. MacArthur I'Bttituck Montauk Republic Suffolk County Westchester County Westchester County . Exhibit V.l depicts the location of those eligible airports selected for system inclusion. As shown, three netW'orl<. airports were not included in the existing system: Ulster County - Marlboro Airport was not included as a system airport due to lack of forecast activity. The airport has a turf runway which signals only seasonal usage. Suffolk County - Coraa Airport was not included as a system airport due to lack of forecast activity. Suffolk County - Spadaro Airport was not included since it duplicates facilities at East Moriches, an adjacent airport. The proximity of these airports precluded the incorporation of both into the system. Elizabeth Field on Fishers Island was included in the existing system due to its isolated location in Suffolk County. Even though the airport has only 4 based aircraft forecast for year 2005, it remains a vety active, busy field due to itinerant seasonal usage. Year 2005 operations are expected to total 29,200. From the capacity analysis, there are publicly owned airports whose airfields cannot be expanded due either to physical or political constraints. They include: Bayport East Hampton L. I. MacArthur Republic Suffolk County Westchester County . Because of these constraints. an alternative recommending the expansion of the existing system could not be developed. Thus, the three conceptual alternatives, described in the study design, were reduced to two alternate courses of action: ''Limited Development" and ''New Airports". V-4 ~.................-..........,,-~-_..._~.~..~~ . .. ~ .~~ lr CHERRY RIDGE .. ) ') ,J' ( ; " ~ , , ~ rJ) c: ,Q - 11l () o ..J AI RPORT INDEX 1 EUZABETH 17 STORMVILLE 2 MONTAUK 18 DUTCHESS CO. 3 EAST HAMPTON I' SKY ACRES . MATmUCK 20 SKY PARK 5 SUFFOLK CO. 21 KlNGSTQN.ULSTER 6 EAST MORICHES 22 WALLKLL 7 BROOKHAVEN 23 STANTON 8 LONG ISLAND MACARTHUR 2' SAGES 9 BAYPORT 25 LHJ 10 REPUBLIC 26 STEWART I 11 JOHN F KENNEDY 27 ORANGE Co. 12 FLUSHING 28 WARWICK 13 LA GUARDiA 2. RANDALL I' WESTCHESTER CO. 30 WURTSBORQ.SUlLIVAN CO. 15 RAMAPO VALLEY 31 MONTICELLO 16 MAHOPAC 32 SULLIVAN CO. INTL. ::: .0 :c X W - ~ o C- .!:: <(C' , J , "- I'll "- SulI,~gn , . , "- I "- ! ) / I / 1'2. ) z.. 1'25 1'23 1'32 , \ "- >, /"1 _ t'2~ ~o )..-- -..j '._.--1 lZ> / Orange / ---------_/" ) , 1'31 V-5 t7 CANDLELIGHT ..__. lr ~RMS .~'~T~ _ ?_ ~~ k---- WeslC",SIe' , , /' ; ( , , I / ' , ;' \ \, >--v-- // \ V C ~ / \, \ ) ~~'~~. "",,0>'" T ROC_lano r . 1rL..-f'--../ ,-~IS- GREENWOOD 1is I r~ ~;.." 'V __ -- LAKE 'I ) j ~,Nf""'" ~..~.-~. : rw..J~,rlJ ~___------ I ">-..---<;.~.~ 'I ' , " '~ 1';--''--. ,/~\ h ('Y,' (,,'-'" ....~""6 1'5 lr /:- \.~~, -1a.11.1' TETERBOR<Yf.'7";":!.'t ", ". ( 1-9 -----../'~ .J.. !lj\:0:"'~2 ) ,~- -to ~~r-7 /" I ;: r~,1) V'L..-l: ~~~ ~ .:::. ,- '~.,"" (~,ie /"', ~~ - ~ .1 ; /),~~ - ~.:;~ of-c'" ;~ <6> ((:,IROC_;- f---z;;::~:/ ,,~\-~~\C. I .!!. ~~~I 1'27 I -t6 ; :-(' , I 1"29 1"2B lr ~" "',. -', SUSSEX ,... T20 DulCl'Ies. Q) .~ - 11l c: ... Q) == <(c I ,... t9 > -ta f'{~~ ;" ,"k; '1V ' , , _--" I ~- / ~ (f-- ~ ~ ~ ~ / AIR CARRIER COMMUTER GENERAL AVIATION PERIPHEilAL AIRPORTS . o - " 1_ S.OIe .- Identification of Alternative 2 - ''New Airports" Alternative The second alternative introduces two proposed reliever airports into the system to absorb surplus demand near airports with capacity constraints. As depicted in Exhibit V.2. airports composing this system alternative include the following: .. Dutchess County Dutchess County Sky Acres Sky Park Stormville Ulster County Kingston-Ulster L.H.J. Sages Stanton Wallkill Orange County Orange County Randall Stewart WaIWick Westchester County Westchester County Putnam County Mahopac New reliever Queens County flushing John F. Kennedy La Guardia Sullivan County Monticello Sullivan County International Wurtsboro-Sullivan County Suffolk County Bayport Brool<ha;ven East Hampton East Ibriches Elizabeth L. I. MacArthur Mattituck Ibntauk New reliever Republic Suffolk County Rockland County Ramapo Valley 'lhia alternative differs from Alternative 1 by introducing proposed reliever airports in both Putnam and Suffolk counties. Examination of projected demand versus existing capacity for both the Westchester County and Ramapo Valley Airports indicates that capacity shortfalls could be alleviated via development of an airport in south central Putnam County or possibly north central Westchester County. Another area with projected unsatisfied demand is near Republic and 1..1. MacArthur Airports. A reliever in the vicinity of Coram was proposed to mitigate excess demand problems at 1..1. MacArthur Airport. .. Both proposed airports would require significant support from the respective local communities and other interested groups in order to be funded and developed. Both airports would qualify for reliever airport funding since 1..1. MacArthur and Westchester County Airports are eligible for relief. V-6 . ~-'-"""'-' >- "'''''- "--,,.~-- "- t/l c:: o :;::; ttl o o ...J . AIRPORT INDEX .... ... o c. ... < C\l <D .2 .... ttl c:: ... <D :!:: <( I ~ > u,_ I EUZABETH 2. MONTAUK 3 EAST HAMPTON 4 MATTlTUCK 5 SUFRlLK CQ 6 EAST MORICHES 7 BROOKHAVEN B LONG ISl.ANO MACAR"lKJR 9 BAYPORT \0 REPUBLIC II JOHN f KENNEDY 12 FLUSHNG 13 LA GUARDIA 14 WESTCHESTER CO. 15 RAMAPO VALLEY 16 MAHOPAC 11 STORMVILLE .. I I . 1:i\ 1'20...... , I , ) , ! ) ) '\ I . \ /--1. T2~ :-ta "'30 )-"0 ----1' ,._---1 l~.. ronp .. / / ,)----------/ 127 -ti6 \ ,~--~-------- , .. \ 1'29 '\ I 't6 , ~- ----- ).___~t~"'_ .. " 33 / I / , / ' , \ /' " " \ . , ( , I \ , .~ -., .'........,,- '-. 132 '. / ./ / "-. ". ....., 1i9 1'24 1'23 1'25 1'31 't7 'X' MRRY RlOGE lr DANBURY 1'2B ~.. ~"..... 'X' ~- ~-- SUSSEX 'X' RO'"lOnd --~ 1i5 ~ GREENWOOO LAKE ~ ~-- ~-' ) I -'\""" , J ~/- i' j l,~__ , TETERBORY1't'Orio~/J"" . ',,-- I.. '112' j )-\13 / NOSIGl " /' \......'O'-m: , \ P-- -:~ ..... ) 1: '- ~t_d _J::~_ ~ ~--- ~ ~~,~ .~," .,~ *34 ... -.t J.7 T9 - ~ N ~ V-7 IB OUTCHESS CO. 19 SKY ACRES 20 SKY PO.RK 21 KINGSTON-ULSTER 2.2 WALLKLL 23 STANlON 24 SAGES 25 LHJ 26 STEWART 27 ORANGE Co. 2B WARWlCK 29 RANDALL 30 WURTS80RO-Su..u\AN CO. 3 I MONTICELLO 32 SULU\IIN co. INTL 33 NEW PUTNAM I WESTCHESTER 34 NEW SUFFOLK .... :c :c X w --~ ~ >'\ ~-~--'\, , , -~- ~---- -~ ~- -+- AIR CARRIER r COMMUTER l' GENERAL AVIATION i' PERIPHERAL AIRPORTS * NEW AIRPORTS . 0 " , - - So.. - ALLOCATION OF AVIATION DEMAND 'ID ALTERNATIVE SYSTEl1 AIRPORTS The next step in the identification of alte=atives was to allocate based aircraft and operations to each alte=ative. This allocation of based aircraft and operations to alte=ative system airports was accomplished using a set of assumptions regarding aircraft owner basing characteristics: . . Ai=aft owners who base aircraft at non-system airports will continue to do so. Non-system airports will hold their maIket share of based aircraft throughout the forecast period. This means that they will experience normal activity growth during the planning period. At airports where capacity exceeds demand, aircraft owners will drive up to 45 minutes from their residence to base their aircraft at an alte=ate system airport. At airports where expansion is not feasible and no alternative airport with unused capacity is within 45 minutes driving time, surplus demand is simply considered "unsatisfied demand". Using the abOlle guidelines for allocation purposes, based aircraft and operations were distributed to airports in each alternative. Described below are the results of this allocation process. Allocation of Based Aircraft to Alternative 1 System Airports Exhibit V.3, presented later, shows the allocation of based aircraft, annual operations, peak hour operations, instrument approaches, and annual service volume (NN) for system airports by the year 2005. The allocation process began with existing forecasts of based aircraft and operations presented earlier in the forecast chapter. The nine system airports identified in the demand/capacity analysis that were projected to have capacity shortfalls, were given particular attention in the analysis. A reallocation of based aircraft and operations was undertaken for each of these airports. System airports within 45 minutes driving time were allocated excess aviation activity from the airports expected to have capacity problems. Explanations of the allocation process include the following: . Brookhaven - Natural growth at this airport totals 307 based aircraft by the year 2005. Eighteen additional based aircraft previously assigned to capacity-deficient L.I. MacArthur were reallocated to Brookhaven. Total based aircraft for year 2005: 325. . East Hampton - Natural growth at this airport will reach 99 based aircraft by 2005. In addition to this growth. 2 aircraft praviously assigned to Suffolk County, 3 aircraft assigned to Spadaro, and 6 aircraft assigned to Mattituck were reallocated to East Hampton. Total based aircraft for 2005: 110-. v-a Stewart - Natural aviation demand at this airport is expected to grow to 68 based aircraft by the year 2005. The growth of 29 aircraft from Ramapo Valley was reassigned to Stewart. Total based aircraft for 2005: 97. . Stormville - By 2005, natural growth at this airport will total 185 based aircraft. In addition, 10 aircraft from Mahopac were reassigned to Stormville. Total based aircraft for 2005: 195. . Warwick - Natural aviation demand at this airport is expected to total 40 based aircraft by the year 2005. A total of 93 aircraft previously assigned to Ramapo Valley were reassigned to Warwick. Total based aircraft for 2005: 133. Unsatisfied Demand - Capacity relief for the following airports was not available within 45 minutes driving time: - Bayport L. I. MacArthur - Mattituck - Republic - Westchester County 13 aircraft 253 aircraft 9 aircraft 307 aircraft 291 aircraft Total 853 aircraft Allocation of Based Aircraft to Alternative 2 System Airports '!he second alternative involved the construction of new airports to accommodate capacity problems. Similar to Alternative 1, six airports including Bayport, East !lampton, 1.L MacArthur, Republic, Suffolk County, and Westchester County. were assumed to be undevelopable due to physical and political constraints. In Alternative 2, two new airports are proposed. '!he new airport locations include " site near Coram and a new reliever in south central Putnam County or north central Westchester County. '!he allocations of aircraft that differ from Alternative 1 are shown bel"",. New Coram - By the year 2005, 128 aircraft previously assigned to 1.r. MacArthur would be assigned to New Coram. More aircraft could be accommodated if a sight other than the existing Corum Airport is located. Total based aircraft for 2005: 128. . New Putnam/Westchester County - By the year 2005, 291 aircraft previously assigned to Westchester County, 93 aircraft assigned to Ramapo Valley, and 10 assigned to Mahopac would be allocated to this airport. Total based aircraft for year 2005: 394. V-9 Unsatisfied Demand - Capacity relief for the following airports was not available within 45 minutes driving time: . Bayport L.I. MacArthur Mattituck Republic 13 aircraft 105 aircraft 9 aircraft 307 aircraft Total 434 aircraft " In this alternative. both Warwick and Stormvil1e return to their natural growth of 40 and, 185 based aircraft. respectively. by the year 2005. Also of note is the fact that in Alternative 2. 419 more based aircraft are allocated to airports than in Alternative 1. Exhibit V.3 - ALLOCATIONS OF AVIKJ:ION DEMAND TO ALTERNATIVES Annual Based Total Peak Hour Instrllllent Service County/Airport Aircraft Operations Operations Approaches Vo1tl1l1e Alte=ati:ve 1 Dutchess County Dutchess County 264 192.300 86 1.261 232,100 Sky Acres 114 64.640 32 9 152.500 Sky Pa:tk 51 17.340 9 2 115,000 Sto1:llNil1e 195 78.000 39 6 151.900 Onmge County Orange County 198 151.080 76 174 168.000 Rendall 70 41.300 21 6 158.400 Stewart 97 249,940 125 1,072 250.000 Warwick 133 69.160 35 0 109.900 Putnam County Mahopac 32 15.360 8 0 38,900 " R.....1r1 And County Ramapo Valley 160 148, 800 74 21 150.000 Sulli.VSD County Monticello 35 2,100 2 0 87,200 Sullivan County International 51 32.640 16 417 140,100 Wurtsboro- Sullivan 148 130,240 65 18 134.600 V-10 Exhibit V.3 - ALLOCATIONS OF AVIATION DEMAND TO ALTERNATIVES (roN'T.) Annual Based Total Peak Hour Instrunent Service County/Airport Aircraft Operations Operations Approaches Vo1tJ11le Alt:e=ati._ 1 (C<ln't.) . Ol.st:er CouDty Kingston-Ulster 57 25,650 13 0 113 , 000 LIlJ 31 7,130 4 0 114,000 Sages 11 N/A N/A N/A 112,700 Stanton 13 4,420 2 0 113,000 Wal1kil1 88 4,400 2 0 114,000 Westchester CouDty Westchester County 498 209,900 92 6,746 210,000 Queeas CouDty nushing 58 58,000 29 0 149,000 John F. Kennedy N/A N/A 29 4,839 N/A La Guardia N/A N/A 25 3,490 N/A Stdfolk CouDty Bayport 96 18,240 9 0 25,700 Brookhaven 325 269,750 135 8 270,000 East Hampton 110 108,100 51 15 108,300 East Moriches 25 8,125 2 0 90,900 Elizabeth Field 4 29,200 15 42 86,400 L,1. MacArthur 468 302,740 129 7,962 303,000 Mattituck 30 21,300 11 0 91,200 Montauk 29 17,400 9 2 105,100 Republic 707 269,660 135 7,661 270,000 Suffolk County 142 229,440 115 67 230,000 . . V-11 Exhibit V.3 - ALLOCATIONS OF AVIATION DEMAND TO ALTERNATIVES CooN'T.) Annual Based Total Peak Hour Instrtllllent Service County/Airport Aircraft Operations Operations Approaches Volume Altemative 21 . Dutchess County Stot:mviJ.le 185 74.000 37 6 151.900 Orange County Wa:rwick 40 20.800 10 0 109.900 Pu1:nam County New Reliever 394 198.960 99 3.473 250.000 Suffolk County New Reliever 128 67.840 34 1.784 198.600 1 Only shown are airports with different activity levels as compared to Alternative 1. . . V-12 Ai.rport:Roles The Tri-State Regional Airport System Plan (RASP), completed in 1978. determined the functional and service roles of the airports in the Interim General kJiation System Plan and of the additional airports in the 1995 General Aviation System Plan Tested. . 'Ibis section will review those determinations with respect to changes which have occurred since 1978. and will asaess the roles of the additional airports in the existing network which were not a part of the Interim Plan or the Plan Tested. . AIRPORT SERVICE ROLES After reviewing the Tri-State RASP service role determinations and the FAA's revised role classifications revised in 1982. a determination of airport roles for the Downstate system airports was made. '!he results are described below. Tri-State RASP Service Role Determinations Airport service roles are used by the Federal kJiation Administration (FAA) to establish federal funding categories only and therefore these service roles are not intended to establish what types of aircraft will be based or conduct operations at a specific airport. In 1978. when the Tri-State RASP was completed. there were four such roles which were designated in the 1976 Amendments to the Airport and Airwsy Development Act of 1970. Air Carrier Airports were publicI airports regularly served by air carriers certified by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) under section 401 of the Federal kJiation Act of 1958 and commuter service airports. Commuter Service Airports were air carrier airports not served by an air carrier certificated by the CAB under section 401 of the 1958 Act. but regularly served by a carrier operating under exemption from section 401 and enplaning at least 2.500 passengers annually. General Aviation Airports were public airports which were not air carrier airports. Reliever Airports were general aviation airports having the primary function of relieving congestion at an air carrier airport by diverting general B:\Tiation traffic. . In the Tri-State RASP. it was determined that five airports were Air Carrier Airports - Kennedy. LaGuardia. Westchester County. Long Island-MacArthur and Stewart; two were Commuter Service Airports- Dutchess County and Republic; the remaining airports were General Aviation Airports. of which one. nushing. was designated as a Reliever Airport. 1 A Public Airport is an airport used for public purposes. under the control of a public agency. the landing ares of which is publicly owned. V-13 Revised Service Role Determinations There are two factors which require that the airport roles must be redetermined in this Study. In 1982, Congress passed the Airport and Airway Improvement Act (AAl!\J. The Act introduced new and different definitions of airport service roles. Secondly, not all of the airports in the existing network considered in this Study were part of the Tri- State Interim Plan or Plan Tested, and therefore, determinations are necessal:)' for these airports. . . The revised airport service roles in the MIA of 1982 reflect changes in both funding categories and funding levels incorporated into the Act. The effect of these changes in funding categories and levels will be considered later in the Study in the evaluation of the alternative aystems of airports. There are still four airport service roles into which airports falL Commercial Service Airports are public airports which enplane 2,500 or more passengers annually and receive scheduled passenger service of aircraft. Primal:)' Airports are airports which enplane .01 percent or more than the total number of passengers enplaned annually at all camnercia1 service airports.1 Reliever airports are airports which relieve congestion at a commercial service airport and prOl7ide more general 8I1iation access to the OI7erall community. Public-Use Airports are any public airports, any privately--owned reliever airport, and any privately owned airport enplaning 2,500 or more passengers annually and receiving scheduled passenger service of aircraft, which is used for public purposes. One point should be noted here. With the exception of the privately owned airports mentioned in the definition of public-use airports, no privately owned airport has an airport service role. In the determinations made below, these airports are designated General Aviation Airports. . . 1 In 1983, a primal:)' airport would have enplaned about 30,400 or more passengers. V-14 Airport Service Roles in the Downstate Region 'The airport service roles for airports in the Downstate Region are shown in Elchibi t V.4. It should be understood that while the service role determinations for most airports will remain unchanged. there is the possibility that other airports may shift from one categol:}' to another. For example. Kennedy and La Guardia airports will certainly retain their designation as primazy airports. But it is possible that Dutchess County. with over 26.000 enplaned passengers in 1983 and. therefore. designated as a commercial service airport. will become a primazy airport at some time in the future) Similarly. if Republic Airport regains scheduled passenger service to the extent that it enplanes 2.500 or more passengers annually. its role would ~e changed to a commercial service airport. making it eligible for additional federal aid. It should also be noted that the AAIA of 1982 places increased emphasis on the importance of reliever airports by reserving funds dedicated solely to these airports. !his has resulted in the identification by the FAA of three additional airports. besides Flushing. as reliever airports: Republic. Brookhaven. and Ramapo Valley. It is. therefore. possible that additional airports may. in the future. be identified as reliever airports. . 1 Dutchess County is forecast to enplane 31.400 passengers in 1985. See the Forecast of Mation Demand. page III-6. 2 In 1983. Republic enplaned over 9.000 passengers before losing scheduled service towards the end of the year. V-15 Exhibit V.4 - AIRPORT SERVICE ROLES Commercial. Service - Primal:)' Airports Kennedy L.I. MacArthur . La Guardia Westchester County Commercial. Service - Non-Primary Airports Dutchess County Reliever Airports Brookhaven Ramapo Val.ley Public-Use Airports Bayport LHJ Stewart Sullivan County New Yon. Skyports. Inc. (Seaplane Basel East Hampton Flushing Republic Elizabeth Field Orange County Suffolk County Wa:r:wick General. Aviation Airports - No Service Role Coram Lufker (East Morichesl Kingston-Ulster Mahopac Mlttituck Monticello Sky Acres Seaplane Bases: Evers Mongaup Lodge Montauk Stanton Stonnvil.le Wal.lki1l Wurtsboro-Su1livan County ~tauk Randall Sky Park Peekski1l Sands Point Suburban . . V-16 AIRroRT EUNCTIONAL ROLES In addition to service roles, airports are given functional roles. Similar to the service roles, airport functional roles are described below. . Tri-State RASP Functional Role Determinations . n.e functional roles of airports are determined by their operational characteristics, that is, the type of aircraft they can serve. In 1978, when the Tri-State RASP was completed, the FAA utilized aircraft weight to set the airport functional roles. n.ere were five functional roles. Basic Utility (BU) Airports served small single-engine aircraft of 8,000 pounds and less. General Utility (GU) Airports served larger single-engine and light twin engine aircraft of 12,500 pounds and less. Basic Transport (BT) Airports served larger aircraft, including turbojet airplanes, of up to 60,000 pounds gross weight. General Transport (GT) Airports served aircraft of up to 150,000 pounds gross weight. The functional roles of airports as determined in the Tri-State RASP are shown for the 1995 Interim Plan in Exhibit II.1 and for 1995 Plan Tested in Exhibit II.2 of the Invento%:}' Chapter.1 Revised Functional Role Determinations In 1983, the FAA revised the functional roles of airports2 by consolidating the Basic Transport, General Transport, and Air Carrier roles into a Transport role and by adding a new role. General Utility II. Among the reasons for the changes was the need to develop precision instrument runways at utility airports with commuter operations without the need to meet Transport airport standards for such runways. n.ese revised roles have been used in this study. . 1 Although the FAA distinguished BII-I and BII-II airports previously, the Tri-State RASP study did not utilize the distinctions and simply classified airports as Basic Utility. 2 See the revised Adviso%:}' Circular 150/5300-4B, Utility Airports: Air Access to National Transportation. and the new Adviso%:}' Circular 150/5300-12, Airport Design Stabdards - Transport Airports. V-17 The FAA eliminated the use of aircraft weight to determine airport roles and introduced in its place the concepts of Aircraft Approach Catego~ and Airplane Design Group to select critical aircraft. The critical aircraft for the Approach Catego~ and the Design Group are determined independently and. thus. it may be necessa~ to select two critical aircraft before an airport's functional role can be determined. . The Aircraft Approach Catego~ is a grouping of aircraft based upon the approach speed of an aircraft at its maximum certificated landing weight. There are five categories. If the type of aircraft which regularly operates at the airport is in approach catego~ A or B. the airport can be designated as a utility airport; otherwise. it IllUSt be designed to transport airport standards. Catego~ A: speed less than 91 knots B: speed 91 knots or more. but less than 121 knots C: speed 121 knots or more. but less than 141 knots D: speed 141 knots or more. but less than 166 knots E: speed 166 knots or more The Airplane Design Group subdivides airplanes by wingspan. There are six groups. Airplane Design Group I: wingspan up to but not including 49 feet II: wingspan 49 feet up to but not including 79 feet III: wingspan 79 feet up to but not including 118 feet IV: wingapan 118 feet up to but not including 171 feet V: wingspan 171 feet up to but not including 197 feet VI: wingspan 197 feet up to but not including 262 feet The functional rolea of the eristing networlt of airports were examined in the light of these revisions. Although no changes were necessa~ to the functional role determinations made during the Tri-State RASP. the critical aircraft have been reassessed. For the airports which were not studied during the Tri-State RASP. their functional roles have been datermined. The roles are shown in Exhibit V.s as are the critical aircraft where appropriate. The functional roles as presented in this report recognize several factors: The initial Tri-State Regional Airport System Plan established roles for the airports in the 1995 Interim Plan and 1995 Plan Tested. Upon reexamination. the functional roles have been found to be valid through the year 2005. The existing system of airports is a mature system. and it has been assumed that there was no need to justify airport roles by reference to population centers or other possible determinants. . Critical aircraft have been determined for Transport airports. but not for Basic Utility and General Utility-I airports. since the type of aircraft they serve are sufficiently noted in their definition. The functional roles are for the year 2005 and represent the ultimate development of the airports. In determining the roles. it has not been assumed that all FAA standards will necessarily be met. nor that adequate land is necessarily available to meet those standards. V-18 Specific facility requirements will be determined later in the study. Existing constraints to development can be found in the sections on airside and landside capacities. Neither Kennedy nor La Guardia airports are considered here. since they are overwhelmingly air ca=ier airports with minimal general aviation activity and. as such, are outside the scope of this study. Ez:hibit V.5 - AIRPORT FUNCTIONAL ROLES Critical Aircraft Airport 2005 Role Airport Approach Category Airplane Design Group Bayport Basic Utility - I Brookhaven General Utility - II Coram Basic Utility - I Dutchess County Transport East Hampton General Utility - II Elizabeth Field Basic Utility - II Flushing Basic Utility - I Kingston-Ulster Basic Utility - II LHJ General Utility - I L.I. MacArthur Transport Lufker (East Moriches) Basic Utility - I I'.ahopac Basic Utility - I Mattituck Basic Utility - I Montauk General Utility - I . Monticello Basic Utility - I Orange County Transport c: Lear jet II: Gulfstream III C: Challenger III: A'l'R-42 C: H8-125-700 II: II: King Air C: Pr-727 III: Pr-727 C: Learjet III: Gulfstream V-19 .. Exhibit V.S - AIRPORT FUNCTIONAL ROLES (OON'T.) Critical Aircraft Airport Approacb Category Airplane Design Group c: Gulfstream III: F-28 D: Pr-747 VI: C-SA C: G-130 IV: C-130 C: Learjet II: Gulfstream C: Pr-737 III: Pr-737 C: Lear Jet II: Gulfstream III V-20 Ability to Satisfy Forecast: """"""" In this section. the alternatives were evaluated to determine their ability to meet forecast demand. Earlier in the chapter, it was noted that in both alternatives, there would be varying amounts of "unsatisfied demand". The integral meas"Jre of demand accommodation is that of facility requirements. Thus, to add capacity to an airport, certain faci.lities must be either expanded or added. In this analysis, there were two groups of airports that have little or no airfield eltpansion capability: Privately owned, public use airports. Publicly owned airports where development is physically or politically unfeasible. Privately owned, public use airports that do not qualify for reliever airport status, are ineligible for public funding for expansion or development. Altbough, it was assumed that existing facilities at privately owned, public use airports would be available to system users throughout the planning period, only minor improvements to these airports could be assumed. Because of their private status and limited funding, no major capital development for faci.lity expansion could be projected. A second group of limited-expansion airports bas been discussed previously and includes: Bayport East Hampton Long Island MacArthur Republic Suffolk County Westchester County These airports are located in areas wbere tbe adjacent communities have opposed growth or expansion plans. Most major development projects for tbese airports are considered politically unfeasible. Therefore, only those projects approved by the local airport sponsors and contained in respective master plans are utilized in this system plan. For the remaining system airports, facility requirements contained master plans or generated specifically for this study were used. requirements process is described generally in the following sections. in respective The facility DEFINITION OF FACILITY REQUIREMENTS STANDARDS . This section describes a consistent set of guidelines which were used to develop airport improvement programs for system airports without current master plans in the Downstate Region. The guidelines serve as general standards for the classifications presented earlier. These standards are necessarily general in nature and it is anticipated that, in some circumstances, exceptions from these criteria will be required, based on individual airport needs. V-21 Exhibit V.6 presents a summaty of the airport development standards for the airport classifications used in this study. These standards are presented for the following categories: Land Lighting and Approach Aids Runways Buildings Taxiways Auto Parking Aircraft Parking Aprons Miscellaneous The following paragraphs address each of these items individually and describe the assumptions and standards that have been used. Land Airside land requirements include acreage under clear zones, the primaty runway surface, and the land under transitional slopes extending from the runway centerline out to the building restriction lines. The tHm..n",-onal standards for airside land requirements are outlined in standard FAA planning criteria for the various airport classifications. These dimensional criteria were followed as closely as possible in determining minimum land requirements. Landside areas comprise the land required for fixed base operations, aircraft parking aprons, hangar areas, terminel buildings, auto parking lots, access roads, and utilities. Landside areas are dependent upon runway and taxiway configurations, as well as the airport's ground access system. Since landside acreage requirements will vaty according to the airport's configuration and ground access system, minimum acreages will differ among the airports. Public airports in the Downstate Region that have less land than is recommended includes: Bayport Elizabeth Field Flushing L.H.J. "'~though these airports have less than the recommended amount, it is generally conceded that this condition will not change. Runways and Taxiways Runway lengths and weight bearing strengths were approximated for each class of airport by using FAA standards contained in advisory circulars. The recommended taxiway width and strength requirements are designated to meet the standards for the adjoining critical runway. In addition, taxiways are recommended for improvement when airfield demand reaches 60 percent of airfield capacity. V-22 Exhibit V.6 - GENERAL FACILITY REQUIREMENT STANDARDS BY AIRPORT CLASSIFICATION Facilities Basic Utility1 General Utili ty1 Transport2 Land Airfiald Clear Zone Landside 92 Acres 107 Acres 116 Acres 46 Acres 46 Acres 90 Acres 12 Acres 12 Acres 24 Acres 3,300 Feet 4,000 Feet3 5,000 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 12,500 Pounds 12,500 pounds3 over 12,500 Pounds 1lumlaya Length Width Strength (Dual Wheal) Ta::bnlya Parallel (Width) 25 Feet 35 Feet 50 Feet Turn Arounds (No./Sq. Yds. Each) 1/667 1/667 1/667 Aira:aft p,m.;"g ApraD. General Aviation Based Aircraft (Sq. Yd./Aircraft) 300 300 300 .Itinerant Tiedown (Sq. Yd./Aircraft) 360 360 360 Air Carrier (Sq. Yd./Gate)4 Lighting and Approach Aids HIRL - High Intensity Rmway Lights W/MLS/ILS W/MLS/ILS MIRL - Medium Intensity Rmway Lights Yes Yes Yes MI'lL - Medium Intensity Taxi><ay Lights MLS - Microwave Landing System TVOR - Tenninal VHE' As Required As Required Onnidirectional Range NDB - Nondirectional Beacon PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicators Yes Yes MALS - Medium Intensity Approach W/MLS Light System REIL - RunwayEnd Identification Lights Yes Yes Yes LIRL - Low Intensity Runway Lights Buildings G. A. Terminal Space (M:i.n:imum) 4 1,200 Sq. Ft. 1,200 Sq. Ft. 1,200 Sq. Ft. A. C. Tenninal (Enplanements/Sq. Ft.) . Control TowerS Conventional Hangar As Required As Required As Required (Sq. Ft./Based Aircraft)6 T-Hangars (Units/Based Aircraft)6 As Required As Required As Required V-23 Exhibit V.6 - GENERAL FACILITY REQUIREMENT STANDARDS BY AIRPORT CLASSIFICATION (CON'T) Facilities Basic Utili ty1 General Utility1 Transport2 Auto p..riri T1g G.A. Auto Parking (S~aces/Pesk Hour Pilots & Passengers) A. C. Auto Parking (Spaces/Annual Enplaned Passengers)7 1.3 1.3 1.3 Hisce11--..s Tower With Rotating Beacon Wind Cone With Segmented Circle Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 U.s. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Utility Airports - Air Access to NatiODa1 Trsnsportation. FAA AC No. 150/530(}-411. 24 Jooe 1975. 2 llS. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Airport Design Standards - Transport Airports. FAA AC No. 150/530(}-12. 28 February 1983. 3 Runways can be longer and have O'ler 12.500 poood load bearing capacity for GU II classification. 4 llS. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Aviation n-...... and Airport: Facility Requirement Forecasts for MediUIII Air TrsDsportation Hubs 1hrougb. 1980. January 1969. 5 U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Airway pI......;T1g StaIIdard Number 0IIe- Toon-;....l Air Navigation Facilities and Air Tnlffic Control Services. FAA Order 7031-2B. 19 January. 1976. 6 Hangar space dictated by fleet mix: Class C - 100% stored in conventional hangars; Class D - 50% stored in conventional hangars. 50% stored in T-hangsrs; Class E - 75% stored in T-hangars. 25% on local aprons for transport airports and 25% stored in T-hangars. 75% on local aprons at utility class airports. 7 U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Planning and Desi8l> of Airport Te%a:inal Facilities at Noohub Locations. FAA AC 150/536cr9. 4 April 1980. V-24 Aircraft Parldng Aprons . Aircraft parking area requirements were calculated on the assumption that paved apron areas will be prOl1ided for all based general aviation aircraft not in hangars. This was equivalent to 25 percent of all E Class aircraft at transport airports and 75 percent of E Class aircraft at utility airports. A total of 300 square yards of apron per aircraft was used for planning the local apron requirement. In addition. transient aircraft parking area requirements equaled one-half the number of busy day transient aircraft (It 360 square yards per aircraft). Lighting and Approsch Aids Criteria for airport lighting and approach aids are established by the FAA in pravioualy referenced documents. Based on these criteria. high intensity runway lighting (Hnu.) and approach light systems (ALS) were recommended at airports that qualify for a precision instrument approach. The taxiway lighting associated with this type of facility was medium intensity taxiway lighting (MITL). All other runways were recommended to have medium intensity runway lighting (MIRL) systems. Medium intensity taxiway lighting was reccmnended for all taxiways and turnarounds adjoining a lighted runway. Approsch aids were recaDlllE!nded at airports as follows: A Non-Precision Instrument Approach Aid was recommended at airports with 200 forecasted annual instrument approsches.1 A Microwave Landing System (MLS) was recommended at scheduled air carrier airports and general aviation airports with qualifying forecasts of annual enp1anements, operations, or instrument approsches.1 An Approach Light System (ALS) was recommended at airports that qualify for microwave landing system. For eligible general aviation airports, a medium intensity approsch light system was recommended, whereas, a high intensity system was recommended at airline airports. Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) were recommended for lighted runways that are forecast to have 6,000 annual operations or more.1 Precision Approsch Path Indicators (PAPI) were recommended for lighted runways that have axisting or forecast annual operations of 10,000 or greater. 2 1 FAA Order 7031.2B, AUvay Pl....m"g Standard Number One - ,.....,.;".., Air Navig/lticn Facilities and Air Traffic Control Services (Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.. 1974). 2 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5345-280, Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) Systems (Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C., 1985). V-25 Buildings Re:l'nrements for airline terminal buildings were taken from applicable master plans for system airports. General aviation terminal sizes are dependent upon the forecast level of peak hour operations. The general aviation terminal building space requirements were calculated on the basis of 35.5 square feet per general aviation peak hour pilot and passenger. The minimun terminal size reccmmended was 1.200 square feet. Hangar space requirements were based upon assumptions about aircraft owner preferences. 'lhese assumptions take into account the relative value of each type of aircraft and. thus. the relative importance of protecting that investment. Year 2005 hangar space requirements were calculated as fo1lcws: Percent of Aircraft Type 'lYpe of Storage 100% of C Class Aircraft 50% of D Class Aircraft 50% of D Class Aircraft 75% of E Class Aircraft 25% of E Class Aircraft CotNentional Hangar CotNentional Hangar 'l'-Hangar T-Hangar at Transport Airports 'l'-Hangar at Utility Airports Auto Pa:dcl.ng Auto parlting areas are recommended for all classifications of airports. Auto pa:dti.ng space requirements are a function of the number of pilots and passengers expected to use an airport during the daily peak hour. Therefore. based upon FAA methodologies.1 general aviation airports are recommended to have 1.3 auto parlting spaces per total number of peak hour general aviation pilots and passengers. Airline passenger pa1i<ing requirements were taken frem the master plans of airports with ccmmercial activity. Miscellaneous All airports were recommended to have a minimum 50 foot tower with a rotating beacon. In addition, a lighted wind indicator was a prerequisite for night operations at the system airports. 1 Federal Aviation Administration. Aviation Demand and Airport Facility Requirement Forecasts for Medium Air Transportation Hubs through 1980, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1969). Appendix 2, p.25. V-26 APlt.ICATION OF STANDARDS TO ALTERNATIVES Exhibit V.7 presents generalized facility additions for Alternatives 1 and 2. Of note in Alternative 2 are the proposed reliever airports and a new runway for Flushing. The two reliever airports would provide facilities for previously unaccommodated deman~ . Because of topography and land constraints, both new airports would be single-runway relievers. Flushing's new runway will result from the replacement of the existing run-Jay with a runway 7 feet higher in elevation. 'lhe resulting major difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 is the accomodation of 419 more besed aircraft in Alternative 2. SUMMARY AND OONCLUSIONS As shown in Exhibit V.7, Alternatives 1 and 2 feature constrained facility development scenarios. That is, no maj or airfield development was feasible for the following airports: Bayport East Hampton L.I. MacArthur Republic Suffolk County Westchester County Prima%)' differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 resulted from the proposed new airports in southern Putnam County and near Coram in Alternative 2. 'lhese new airports, combined with existing airports would accommodate 419 more based aircraft than just the existing system alone. Ranking of the alternatives resulted in Alternative 2 as first and Alternative 1 as secon~ Alternative 2 was judged superior since it contained the higher level of aviation demand accommodation. 'lhe improvements in this alternative indicate a responsiveness to aviation demand in the Downstate Region. Alternative 1 ranked second since it was less responsive to the needs of aviation users in the study area. Evaluation of Airspace Utilization This section describes the results of the evaluation of airspace utilization for each alternative. The product of this evaluation was a set of airspace utilization scores for the airports in each alternative. The section was organized to include the following major topics: Terminal VFR/IFR Airspace Utilization Enroute Airspace Utilization Summa%)' and Ranking of Alternatives V-27 . EXhibit V.7 - PUBLIC AIRPORT FACll.I'I'Y IMPROVEMEm'S BY ALTERNATIVES Additional RUIlW'ay Taxiway Colll7entional Additional Apron Ligh ting Navaid Alternative/Airport Impr0\7emen t2 Improvement Hangers (s.f.) T-hangars (units) Expansion (s.y.) Improvements Improvemen t s3 Alternative 1 Bayport None None 0 10 26,300 No None Brookhaven Overlay None 0 75 70,500 No KoS, ALS Dutchess County Overlay EXtension 110,000 123 65,600 Yes None . East Hampton1 Overlay New 30,000 18 16,100 Yes PAPI Elizabeth Field1 Overlay New 0 1 2,400 Yes PAPI flushing1 Overlay; New New 18,800 28 18,400 Yes PAPI LHJ Overlay; Widen 4-22 New 1,200 8 0 Yes PAPI L.I. MacArthur1 Overlay; EXt. 6-24 EXtension 0 132 70,300 Yes PAPI Orange County Overlay New 48,600 96 31,900 Yes PAPI Ramapo Valley Overlay None 0 19 48,400 Yes PAPI Republic1 Overlay None 32,000 220 118,000 No None Stewart Overlay None 0 0 25,600 No PAPI Suffolk County1 Overlay New 10,000 78 11,100 Yes KoS, ALS Sullivan County Int'1. Overlay None 14,200 26 0 Yes None Warwick Extension/ Widening 3-21 New 0 20 2,620 Yes KoS, ALS Westchester County1 Overlay New 150,600 213 56,840 Yes None Alternative 2 New Coram New New 15,400 37 37,980 Yes PAPI New Putnam County New New 442,100 186 144,200 Yes !f.S, ALS, PAPI Warwick EXtension! Widening 3-21 New 0 0 9,760 Yes !f.S, ALS 1 Fran existing master plan. 2 Overlay includes all airport runways. 3 AbbrE!lriations: MLS = Microwave Landing System ALS = Approach Lighting System PAPI = Precision Approach Path Indicator V-28 ~,.._.'-",-",._. ._~.,.,.,. - c-T"'"' .....".... .. TERMINAL VFR/IER AIRSPACE UTll.IZATION Due to the nature of the alternatives. the most significant airspace utilization component was the terminal VFR/IFR airspace configurations. As stated prE!ITiously. visual flight rules and instrument flight rules airspace configurations are part of an airport's . terminal area airspace system. This system consists of all facilities. equipment. and services in the airport and nea:z:-airport areas required to safely transition an aircraf: frcm enroute to terminal area airspace and subsequent airport landing. The VFR airspace configurations. by alternative. are presented in Exhibits V.8 and V.9. As shown in the exhibits. there are only three areas where airspace reservaticn areas overlap. These overlaps include: La Guardia and Flushing L.I. MacArthur and Bayport Suffolk County and East Moriches The La Guardia/Flushing overlap presents serious constraints to operational procedures at Flushing. Flushing's locationa1 relationship to La Guardia restricts its airspace utilization for operations to the west of the airport. Air Traffic Control (ATC) has created an exclusion area in the New York 1erminal Control Area (TeA) specifically for VFR operations at Flushing. OccasionB.11y. some VFR aircraft operating from Flushing will penetrate the TeA. These problems are closely monitored by laC and have been attributed to the limited airspace around Flushing and pilots unfamiliar with the tight airspace restrictions. A1:. this airport. Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 93. Special Air Traffic Rules. are in effect. In both of the alternatives. this airport is expected to experience airspace constraint problems. VFR airspace interaction between L.I. MacArthur and Bayport has not been considered serious due to low 1E!ITels of activity associated with Bayport. The same conditions hold true for airspace interactions between Suffolk County and East Moriches. Neither of these two overlaps are expected to pose problems during the planning period. The IER airspace configurations. by alternative. are presented in Exhibits V.ID and V.ll. These airspace reservation areas are in effect during instrtUllent or poor weather conditions. In terms of IER airspace utilization, Alternative I differs slightly from Alternative 2. The "New Airports" alternative features two new proposed airports with instrument approach capabilities. Exhibit V.ll presents the degree of overlap associated with the IFR airspace reservation areas at airports in Alternative 2. IER airspace overlaps indicate a potential for operational conflicts and are discussed in the fol1CMing paragraphs. by alternative: . Alternative I - In this alternative. IFR airspace reservation area overlaps exist between the following airports: Montauk and East Hampton East Hampton and Suffolk County Suffolk County and Brookhaven Suffolk County and Long Island JoI.acArthur Brookhaven and Long Island MacArthur Brookhaven and Republic V-29 ~ lr DAN8UlY AIRPORT INDEX I EUZABETH 17 STORMVlLLE 2 MONTAUK . 18 DUTCHESS CO. 3 EAST HAMP'TCJ.4 19 SKY ACRES . MATTTT1JO< 20 SKY PARK 5 SlJFFQU( Co. 21 K1NGSTOIHLSTER G EAST MORIOiES 22 WALLKLL 7 BROOKHAVEN 23 STANTON 8 LONG 1SlAN0 MACARTlfJR 2. SAGES I.) 9_ BAYPORT 25 lHJ 10 REPUBLIC 26 STEWART 11 JOHN F.: KENNEDY 27 ORANGE co. 12 FUJSHNG 28 WARWJa< 13 LA GUARDIA 29 RANDALL " WESTCHESTER CO. 30 WURTSBORQ-SlUJVAN CO. 15 RAMAPO VAlLEY 3 I MONTICELLO 16 MAHOPAC 32 SULU\AN co. INTL <l> > :;: CO C .... <l> - <l:: 0; CO <l> .... <l:: c o - CO > .... <l> !/l <l> a: a: l.L. > I 00 :> / w_ i' CHERRY ROGE ! j~ cY @ , I "'"" @@-- '--__ I , ' I ) ,/ : <, rt'@ (!;) 1) (.;\ "<'-~ ) ~ @"'I,'1@1@ ... \.-"~_/- _,"'2 : .1.18 (.;\ .1.30 Om.,. "---7 ~ \---------j ~ @ (,'~---;;-..;,;--- -,-- @ ',\\ ! ~------- (!;l / k;---- ...,~..~ / \ //~ \\ lr ''''''"'@'' GREENWOOO 1'15 I LAKE ~ s...~~an AIRSPACE RESERVATION OIERLAP If. ~ ,~~ ,..,S<>'" ~~~ C~:././__/ tyfl. //-././ ~" ~. r - .0 -C X llJ i' ~.. ....,'> ~ ~- c;- SUSSEX ~ ,,~ ~ o CID vrn AIRSPACE RESER\ATION AREA ; l., -+ AIR CARRIER ~ COMMlTE."l T GE~RAL AVIATION Y PERIPHERAL AIRPORTS . o - - "'" . . - V-30 1- _~ _ __ '___T_"_"__~___~-" _, y ClE:RRY RIDGE @ ~ @@- I ". \ ,I ! // @ (:;;\ ! "'",''' @ ~ I @ @"\/'l(:;;\i@@' ..)...--' '-\.fYL,._---1 LIS .. .1.30... OnInV' .. .117 )---------j @ @ (,r---;;;;;;.;;-------- : ~ \ ! r.t::___-- , ~ @ ,/~>---f;\.. ,/" ~\ ~ ///' \ . \, Y R~''''@, GREENWOOD 'tis f LAKE I I , , C\l Q) > - OJ c: .... Q) AIRPORT INDEX =: <( I ELIZABETH 17 STORMVlLLE rn 2 MONTAUK IS DUTCHESS Co. OJ 3 EAST HAMP1tl< 19 SKY ACRES Q) .... 4 lIATTlTlJCI( 20. SKY PARK <( 5 ~co. 21 KJlGSTON'ULSTER c: 6 EAST MOR1CHES 22 WALLKU .Q - 7 BRJOKIWIEN 23 STANTON OJ LONG ISl.ANO MACARTHUR 24 SAGES > 8 .... 9 BAYPDRT 25 LHJ Q) rn 10. REPUBLIC 26 STEWART Q) " JClH'j F KENNEDY 27 ORANGE Co. a: 12 FWSHNG 28 WARWICK a: 13 LA GLIAROlA 29 RANDALL U. > 14 WESTCHESTER CO, 3D WURTSBORO-SUl..U'IAN CO, 15 RAMAPO VALLEY 31 MONTICELLO. I 16 lIAHDPAC 32 SULUIAN co. IIITL O'J :> - :0 :E X w . y SUSSEX 'X'DANBURY """",p>IJ ,~ -- . ...-- ...--- ...--- ------- (!J/.' ...---'\" -...- ...-- ...--- -_...--- -- --- v ----- ...- ...- o (j),. .~. -.Z: VFR AIRSPACE RESER\ATlON Af€A AIRSPACE RESERVATION OVERLAP ~ AIR CARRIER ~ ~ COMMUTER l' GENERAL AVIATION N 'X' PERIPHERAL AIRPORTS * NEW AIRPORTS 0 . . - - -- - . . V-31 ",-..",,,,--..." ~-",. ."~.. . - ~"_'.","c. ~----,~~ ~._.;,:,-~.....".._- :'~-""---"'~"-"'-"-_>:------"> ._ _~"",-,""~,,,,,,,,"""",,~'.o-.~"_ ..,-<,,_.~,~___',_.~~__.~ _.~, _,,"'-,'''_ _.~. ,,,-,,"--"~,:'-'-",,-,.~"--"-- .-._~_.~--,. -- ",,,",,, --_.___,...._~.......~_M~._." -------.----'-- .... NON PRECISION AIRSlACE RESERVATION AREA Q) .2: - ro c: .... Q) =:: <C U:i ..\)- Q) .... <C c: o :;:; ro > .... Q) rfl Q) 0: 0: Ll. I o .... AIRPORT INDEX ,- 1 EUZABETH " RAMAPO VALLEY_ . 2 MONTAUK 12 $TORMVILLE 3 EAST HAMPTON 13 DUTO<ESS CO. . SUFFOLK CO. " SKY ACRES '" S BROOKHAVEN IS SKY PARK , '"'""" ", 6 LONG ISLANO MACARTHUR 16 STEWART . "- 7 REPUBLIC 17 ORANGE CO. '. 18 RANDALL 8 JOHN F. KENNEDY . LA GUARDIA " W~TSBORO-SLLlNA.'l CO. 10 WESTCHESTER CO. 20 MONTICELLO 21 SUlLIVAN CO. INTL. I __ " --------- ,;f----- W.tch..,.. , . / ? / ' , /' , . \ , , \ , , o o n L:::J PRECISION ~SPACE RESERVATION AREA > msPACE OVERLAP - :c :E X UJ ~oc.k1nd ;~ \ . ~1 ~""'" _ _ - J~ \.~ -- SV __~--- -- / ---- -- - - NEW 'YORK TeA + "i- T AIR CARRIER COMMUTER GEFlERAl AVIAT1QN o - . - V-32 . ~\ ~ . ~ / , s..... " , " " NEW 'YORK TCA\ ~ o - V-33 ,.~ .',,"~_'::~-C-''':.'-.:':''::-::'_-::::,' Y':-,"-~:~_. -,~' _...".O"_~;,'. ::7,,::;'."";T"'-'.-.':""'~':C'~~C...-- AIRPORT INDEX C\J (]) > - CIl c ~ (]) - <t: I EUZABETH 2 MONTAUK 3 EAST HAMPTON 4 SUFFOLK CO. 5 BROOKHAVEN 6 LCNG ISLAND MACARTHUR 7 REPUBLIC 8 JOHN F KENNEDY ) 9 _ LA GUARDIA 10 wESTCHESTER CO. II RAMAPO VALLEY 12 STORMVILLE 13 DUTD1ESS CO. 14 SKY ACRES 15 SKY PARK 16 STEWART 17 ORANGE CO. 18 RANDALL 19 WLRTSBORO-SUUNAN Co. 20 MONTICELLO 2\ SULLNAN CO. INTL. (/) CIl (]) ~ <t: c o - CIl > ~ (]) (/) Q) a: a: LL. \0 10 NON PREC1SION AIRSPDCE RESERVATION AREA ~ ~ / PRECISION AEl:SPACE RESERVATION AREA > - .0 .c X W [J ARSPACE OVERLAP . + -t- T * ~w AIRPCf17S AIR CARRIER COMMUTER GE/l.ERAL .1vlA,T10N - . Long Island MacoArthur and Republic Republic and John F. Kennedy John F. Kennedy and La Guardia La Guardia and Westchester County La Guardia and Remapo Valley Remapo Valley and Orange County Orange County and Stewart Orange County and Randall Orange County and Wurtsboro-Sullivan County Orange County and Monticello Randall and Stewart Randall and Monticello Randall and Wurtsboro-Sullivan County Randall and Dutchess County Randall and Sky Acres Monticello and Sullivan County International Monticello and Wurtsboro-Sullivan County Wurtsboro-Sullivan County and Stewart Stewart and Stonnville Stewart and Dutchess County Stewart and Sky Acres Stonnville and Dutchess County Stonnville and Sky Park St01:mville and Sky Acres Dutchess County and Sky Acres Dutchess County and Sky Parl< Sky Acres and Sky Park The most serious. of these airspace overlaps are those located within the New York TCA and L.I. MacoArthur TRSA. IFR operations conducted within these areas are safe due to stringent air traffic control procedures required by the FAA. This area. because of its high activity and national visibility has been the subject of many FAA studies and subsequent refinements and upgradings of ATC procedures. The second group of airspace overlaps of concern are those located in the Hudson Valley area, and shown on the exhibit. Upgraded ATC facilities and procedures are expected to reduce potential IFR airspace conflicts and delay.... Alternative 2 - This alternative has the same IFR airspace overlaps as does Alternative 1 with the additions of IFR airspace reservation areas for the two proposed reliever airports. Overlaps resul ting from these include the following: Westchester County and New Putnam/Westchester County Reliever Republic and New Coram Reliever L.1. MacoArthur and New Coram Reliever Brookhaven and New Coram Reliever Potentially, the most serious of these overlaps is that of L. I. MacoArthur and the new reliever, if it is constructed on the existing Coram airport site. Other overlaps are not considered serious due to runway operating configurations and proximity of airports. V-34 ENROUTE AIRSPACE UTll.IZATION The enroute airspace system is composed of a network of three airways or route systems which have been established for air navigation purposes. 'lhese are the Very High Frequency Omni-Range (VOR) , jet route, and area navigation (RNAV) route systems. Although the jet route and area navigation routes are part of Downstate's airspace system, their operations do not directly interact with the region's airports. 'Iherefore, these routes were not considered in the airspace analysis. Attention was primarily focused on the low altitude, Victor Airway System which directly affects operations at the Region's airports. As described in an earlier chapter, the VOR airway system is predicted solely on VOR/VORTAC navigation aids and is depicted on aeronautical charts by a "'i" (''Victor'') followed by the airway number, for example V29. 'lhese airways are numbered similarly to U.S. highways. As in the highway numbering system, a segment of an airway which is common to two or more routes carries the number of all the airways which coincide for that segment. 'lhe VOR airway system consists of airways designated from 1,200' above the surface, or in some instances higher, to, but not including, 18,000' and is designed to serve aircraft that operate at these altitudes. Pilots utilizing the VOR airway system are generally navigating to a specific airport location. Towered airports with heavy traffic loads generally feature published SID's and STAR's (Standard Instrument Departure procedure and Standard Terminal Arrival procedure) to facilitate enroute transitioning of IFR aircraft. In the Downstate Region, the following system airports have these procedures: La Guardia L.I. MacArthur John F. Kennedy Republic Westchester County These procedures facilitate Air Traffic Control agreements concerning routine handoff procedures between ATC tower personnel and Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) personnel. Discussions with FAA personnel in the region revealed that the enroute IFR system is faced with serious capacity problems over the next 20 years. 'Ihese problems stem from the fact that the New York City air traffic hub is one of the busiest in the entire nation. 'Ihe airspace system in the Downstate Region has been built around the commercial airlines that use La Guardia, John F. Kennedy, or Newarl<. airports. The small general aviation aircraft have had less preferential treatment in the past. and as a result, have been given more circuitous routings in order to remove them fran the heavy jet traffic flow. Solutions to these problems are being sought by the FAA in several areas: More off-peak scheduling by airlines Technological advances in instrunentation, ATC computers, and radar Increased efficiency of ATe system utilization via restructuring V-35 In the past, repeated studies hslre shown that overall traffic can grow if off-peak scheduling is employed. 'Ihe flying public has, for the most part, consistently rejected these scheduling attempts by airlines. 'Ihe second event that would increase enroute system capacity would stem from technological advances in computers and radar. In these instances, separation between aircraft may be reduced from five miles to four or three miles, depending upon the error tolerances of new equipment. 'Ihe third factor to increase , capacity would be a restructuring of the system to reduce or eliminate the influence of bottleneck areas. 'Ihe FAA is currently developing a plan for the northeast U.S. that may involve initiation of new VOR and jet route aiJ:Ways. . From an enroute IFR standpoint, Alternative 1 differs slightly from Alternative 2. Alternative 2 features two reliever airports that could be used for operational relief of the busy New York and Long Island terminal areas. 'Ihese new airports would serve to increase oversll system demand by accommodating previously unsatisfied demand operations. Accessability of the enroute IFR system to these new airports would require greater coordination with ATe as they "compete" for open slots in the system. Because of this, Alternative 2 would rank slightly lower than Alternative 1 with respect to IFR enroute airspace utilization. SUMMARY AND RANKJN; OF ALTERNATIVES To summarize, both of the alternatives were evaluated with respect to two primary sets of criteria. The first involved terminal VFR/IFR airspace utilization. 'Ihe second set of criteria centered aromd the enroute airspace utilization. Evaluation of VFR airspace utilization resulted in the ranking of both slternatives equally. Ranking was based on the fact that there are the same number of VFR airspace overlaps in each alternative. Alternative 1 ranked highest with respect to IFR airspace utilization since it had fewer airspace reservation area overlaps than Alternative 2. 'Ihe evaluation of enroute airspace utilizations resulted similarly, in that Alternative 2 would interject more operations into an slready overcrowded systeDt. Overall ranking. of alternatives with respect to airspace utilization resulted in Alternative 1 ranking first, and Alternative 2 ranking second. Evaluatian of Surface Access This section provides a general evaluation of surface access for the two alternatives. 'Ihe evaluation is limited mainly to orrairport access because this is a general aviation study and the traffic volumes generated by this activity on off-airport access roads are not great enough to constrain traffic flow. Off-airport access is evaluated only if there are firm plans for highway or roadway improvements which will materially affect airport access or if there are obvious access problems for which no improvements or solutions are planned or possible. Kennedy and LaGuardia airports are not considered because they are oveJ:Whelmingly scheduled service airports. Off-airport access is discussed in the section of the Il1\1entory Olapter entitled, '~round Access". This section also describes highway or roadway improvements which are under construction or planned in the vicinity of the system airports. V-36 On-airport access is discussed in the "Surface Access Capacity II section of the Demand/Capacity O1a.pter. The evaluation is divided into two parts, one for airports with existing airport Master Plans or Layout Plans and another for airports without such plans. , AIRPORTS WITH MASTER PLANS OR IAYOUT PLANS . The most thorough assessment of surface access can be made for those airports with existing Master Plans or Layout Plans since the Plans identify deficiencies, and recommend improvements to remove such deficiencies. Bayport Aerodrane Access to the airport is from Third Avenue and the access road is currently in the clear zone area. While there is no existing Master Plan for Bayport Aerodrome, the Airport Layout Plan indicates that the ultimate development at the airport will include improved and new access roads. At the present time, because of the condition of the existing road, access is difficult and will be until the proposed changes are made. If the recommendations of the Airport Layout Plan are followed, then the access will be adequate for the airport. Brookhaven The access road to the Airport is at the intersection of Dawn Drive and Maple Avenue. The access road to the airport terminal is from Grand Avenue, and consists of a one-way looped road. It also provides access to the autanobile parking lot. Dutchess County There are three access roads to the airport. The Terminal building and the control tower are served by a looped access road from New Hackensack Road. The north side of the field can be reached from Jackson Road which itself can be reached from Vassar Road to the north or New Hackensack Road, to the south. The third road, again from New Hackensack, provides access to the east side of the airfield. The Master Plan, completed in May of 1984, indicated that the access from these roads would be adequate for the foreseeable future. (The Plan, however, did recommend the realignment of the access road to the east side of the field in order to permit further developnent of the airport property). East Hampton Access to the airport facilities is from Daniel's Hole Road. Although the ultimate development at the airport calls for relocating portions of Daniel's Hole Road, it will still continue to provide access to the airport. The capacity of the access road will be adequate throughout the 20 year planning period of this study. V-37 flushing At the present time access to the airport is from Linden Place which is in need of significant repaiL The access road is considered adequate for the present configuration of the airport. However, the Master Plan envisions a three runway configuration with access from 20th Avenue to a newly located terminal area. The new access road will be an improvement over the current access from Linden Place. The road from Linden Place may be retained to provide access to specialized activities at the airport. . Long Island MacArthur The entrance road to Long Island MacArthur Airport is a four-lane divided highway from Veterans Memorial Highway, which is south of the airport. A circulation road provides access to the various airport activities. The circulation road has recently been extended to give access to general aviation activities on the east side of the airport. The roads will provide adequate access throughout the planning horizon. Orange County According to the Airport Master Plan. completed in 1977, the existing on-airport acceSS road is adequate to handle the anticipated peak traffic demand. Improvements to this road, and Dunne Road, just off the airport. will not be required during the planning horizon of this study. Republic At the present time, access onto the airport is from Route 110. The road to the terminal contains two sharp ninety degree turns which restrict traffic to 10 miles per hour. causing congestion at peak periods. There are plans to move the on-airport access road further down on Route 110 where it will be possible to build a more direct access road. This new road will provide convenient and adequate access throughout the planning period. St....art Access to the airport is from New York Route 207 to Breuning Road to First Street. While this access is adequate for general aviation for the near future, the ultimate plans for the airport necessitate another access point. A new access road from Route 171< will be built which will insure thet the commercial development planned for the airport will . not inhibit general aviation access to the airport. Suffolk County All automobile traffic to Suffolk County Airport must use Old Riverhead Road to gain entry to the airport; service roads on the airport grounds permit distribution of the vehicles to the airport general aviation facilities. No deficiencies in the ability of the service roads to serve general aviation patrons has been identified. V-38 Westchester County King and Purchase Streets provide access to on-airport circulation roads. The circulation roads provide access to the general lNiation areas of the airport. These circulation roads will be able to handle the traffic throughout the planning period. The 1980 Airport "'.aster Plan proposed consideration of an extension of 1-684 to permit direct access from it to areas south of the airport without imposing substantial increases to traffic on King and Purchase Streets. . AIRPCRTS WI'lHOI1r MASTER PLANS OR LAYOUT PLANS Most of the airports in this categOl:y are privately owned, although there are a few publicly owned airports such as Sullivan County and Warwick. Elizabeth Field is a special case since it is located on Fishers Island and there is no land access to the airport. On-airport roads are paved in some cases, but in others, the roads are unpaved. Whether plNed or unplNed, they provide adequate access to the airports for the forecast general aviation demand. Only one airport has a potential problem. Access to LRJ Airport is over a road on the property owned by 0lanne1 Master and currently up for sale. In view of the long- standing use of this road for airport access, no problem is foreseen. In addition, there is alternate access to the airport from the other end of the runway, although it is not as cOlllTenient as the current access. SUMMARY Surface access in both alternatives is adequate to meet the forecast demand. Alternative 1 represents for Warwick Airport Ii significant increase in based aircraft; however, its access roads are deemed capable of handling the demand. Other than Warwick Airport, there are no differences (except 10 aircraft at Stormville) between the two alternatives with respect to the number of based aircraft and, consequently they both require the same level of access capacity. Eval.uation of Envinmmental and Land Use Factors . In order to adequately assess the effects of alternative development scenarios on the environment and land use at public airports in the Downstate. several criteria were evaluated. '!hey included: . Air and water quality Noise Endangered species Area land use Using these criteria, an evaluation and ranking of the alternatives was performed. Because development was only assumed at the fourteen publicly owned airports, Ramapo V-39 Valley Airport, and the two proposed relievers, this analysis was limited to just those airports. The Port Authority airports were not included in the analysis due to their primal)' use by airlines. ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA , . All external conditions and influences that affect the life, development, and ultimate survival of living organisms in a particular area can be defined as eIl'Tironmental criteria. Air and water quality, noise, endangered species criteria noted in O1apter II were used to assess existing impacts at study area airports. Based on these findings, an overall emTironmental impact rating was given to each airport in each altl>rnative to determine the optimum development scenario. The overall rating of environmental criteria including air and water quality, noise pollution. endangered species, is presented later in Exhibit V.l2. Briefly, the criteria used were the same as in Chapter II of this report. In that chapter, air quality was described in terms of pollution emissions, their sources, and the study area's compliance with State and Federal ambient air quality standards. Water quality was related to airport development using proximity to lakes, rivers, streams, ponds, or the salt-water bays or inlets, as a measure of potential impact. In addition. regional ~dro1ogy, drainage characteristics, and sensitive aquifer recharge zones on Long Island and were all taken into account in the water impact analysis. Noise impact analysis was based upon two primal)' factors: the level of airport activity and prarimity to incompatible land uses. Thus, land use compatibility is an integral part of noise impact in the vicinity of an airport. Finally, the alternatives' impact on endangered species was based upon NYS Department of Environmental Conservation findings pertaining to the location and potential occurence of a threatened or endangered species. Evaluating the two alternatives using environmental and land use criteria consisted of examining existing conditions gathered from aerial photos, U.s. Geological Survey Maps, master plans, statewide comprehensive recreational plans, environmental data provided in O1apter II, and forecast aviation demand. The evaluation was based on the examination of the area located within a one mile radius of each system airport. Environmental effects of the airport on this area considered the location of schools, churches, hospitals, waterways, residential areas, parks, and environmentally sensitive areas. . Using these criteria. both the ''Limited Development" and "New Airports" alternatives were evaluated and the results were analyzed in matrix format. The application of criteria to the alternatives is described below. The "Limited Deve1opnent" Alternative Alternative 1, the ''Limited Development" alternative proposes no major airfield facility improvements and only limited groundside expansions or infilling. Environmental and land use constraints that presently exist and which most negatively impact the system V-40 are those at flushing, Westchester County, Republic, Suffolk County, East Hampton. and Bayport, not necessarily in that order. Exhibit V.12 displays the rankings of each of the airports with respect to the various criteria for Alternative 1. Of note, the highest noise impact ratings were assigned to I.I. MacArthur, Republic, and Westchester County airports. The high levels of activity at those airports, combined with large areas of residential land use in the airports' vicinity were prime factors in the evaluation process. , Highly sensitive environmental areas were identified near East Hampton. flushing, and Suffolk County Airports. Airports with moderate environmental constraints included Dutchess County and Elizabeth Field. The ''New Airports" Alternative Alternative 2, the "New Airports" alternative, features limited expansion of the network airports, in addition to two new reliever airports. Since Alternative 2 incorporates Alternative 1, the environmental impacts will be similar with each alternative; this can be seen in Exhibit V.l2. The worst environmental ratings were again assigned to I.I. MacArthur, Republic, and Westchester County Airports. The environmental impacts of the New Airports Alternative are very similar, with low to moderate ratings. Presently, the Coram site is in a partially residential setting with moderate land use conflicts present:. Because of this, care should be given to the determination of airport role and activity level assigned to the airport. The new reliever proposed for south central Putnam County or north central Westchester County does not have a specific site location. The general area. however, is characterized by small lakes, wetlands, hills, and residential development. As s result, water and noise impact. are the more critical factors in the evaluation. SUMMARY AND CDNCLUSIONS Primary differences in environmental impact between the alternatives is the result of the addition of two airports in Alternative 2. These new airports created a higher overall impact rating of 108 points as compared to 96 rating points in Alternative 1. The average impact of the alternatives was 5.3 for Alternative 1, with Alternative 2 only slightly higher at 6.0. Based on the evaluation of environmental factors, Alternative 1 was ranked. first, meaning less environmental impact than Alternative 2. However, the impact of Alternative 1 is only marginally lower since the difference is a result of fewer airports. . V-4l . E><hi bi t V.I 2- ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES Alternati ve 1 Alternati ve 2 Airport Air Quality Water Quality Noise Wildlife Total Air Quality Water Quality Noise Wildlife Total Bayport 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 5 . Brookhaven 1 2 2 I 6 1 2 2 1 6 Dutchess County 1 2 2 2 7 1 2 2 2 7 East Hampton 1 2 1 3 7 1 2 1 3 7 Elizabeth Field 1 2 1 2 6 1 2 1 2 6 Flushing 1 3 2 3 9 1 3 2 3 9 lJlJ 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 L. I. MacArthur 2 1 3 1 7 2 1 3 1 7 Orange County 1 2 2 1 6 1 2 2 I 6 Ramapo Valley 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 5 Republic 2 1 3 1 7 2 1 3 I 7 Stewart 1 2 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 5 Suffolk County I 2 1 3 6 1 2 1 3 6 Sullivan County International 1 I I 1 4 I 1 I I 4 Warwick I I I I 4 1 1 1 1 4 Westchester County 1 3 3 1 8 1 3 3 1 8 New Coram 1 1 2 2 6 New Putnam County 1 2 2 1 6 Total 96 108 Ratings: 1 - Low Impact 2 - Moderate Impact 3 = High Impact . V-42 Capital. Developnent and Main"-ce Costs Cost estimates for expanding the alternative systems of airports are critical to the evaluation of alternatives. This analysis was performed in two steps: first, a determination of applicable unit costs was made; then these costs were applied to the development proposed in the facility requirements to produce a general cost estimate for each alternative. . . Several sources were used in the development of cost estimates to assure that relatively accurate costs were derived. '!hese sources included: Building Coost:ructi.ccl Cost Data: 1984: Robert S. Means Canpany, Inc. Cost estimates contained in numerous Aviation System Plans, including those for Southern Tier, New York, Texas, Oklahana, and Kenwck:Y. Cost estimates used in recent Downstate New York Master Plans. '!he costs of maintaining system airports were estimated on the basis of inventot:y information collected on pavement condition and last date of overlay. Using this material, periodic overlays, based upon the effective pavement life, were incorporated into the cost of implementing each alternative. '!his maintenance cost is large enough to be considered a capital improvement and is eligible for federal funding. Comparative cost estimates were prepared using the requirements for each airport in each alternative. A detailed description of unit costs is presented in Exhibit V.13. All unit cost estimates are in constant 1984 dollars. V-43 . Exhibit V.13 - UNIT COST OF DEVELOPl1ENT ITEMS: 1984 DOU.ARS Utility Transport Capital Cost Descriptor Unit1 Airport Airport Runways: N...../Extend/Widen S.Y. $ 26.00 $ 46.00 Overlay S.Y. $ 15.00 $ 15.00 Taxiways: NeIO'/Extend/Widen S.Y. $ 26.00 $ 46.00 Overlay S.Y. $ 15.00 $ 15.00 Buildings: General Aviation Tetminal S.F. $ 80.00 $ 80.00 Conventional Hangar S.F. $ 30.00 $ 30.00 T-Hangar Each $ 12,500.00 $ 12,500.00 Aircraft Parking Apron: General Aviation Apron S.Y. $ 26.00 $ 46.00 Apron Overlay S.Y. $ 15.00 $ 15.00 Lighting & Approach Aids2 HIRL L.F. $ 20.00 $ 20.00 MIRL L.F. $ 20.00 $ 20.00 MI'll. L.F. $ 25.00 $ 25.00 MLS/ILS L.S. $ 400,000.00 $ 400,000.00 NDB L.S. $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 PAPI-4 Each $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 MALS L.S. $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 REIL Pair $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Miscellaneous : Rotating Beacon & Tower L.S. $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Wind Sock with SegJDellted L.S. $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 Circle: Lighted . 1 Unit abbreviations include the following s~. Y. - Square Yards L.F. - Linear Feet L. S. - Lump Sum S. F. - Square Feet , 2 Abbreviations include the following: HIRL - High Intensity RWllo7ay Lights MIRL - Medium Intensity RWlWay Lights MI'll. - Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights NDB - Nondirectional Beacon PAPI-4 - Four Box Precision Approach Path Indicator MLS/ILS - Microwave/Instrument Landing System REIL - Runway End Identifier Lights MALS - Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System V-44 Exhibit V.14 presents the relative development costs for each airport. by alternative. lhese costs are general in nature and may not reflect all of the airport specific improvements that are anticipated by some airport sponsors. Such detail is beyond the scope of this system plan and will not impact the relative comparisons of alternatives. , To supplement the level of detail in the system plan" relevant portions of available master plans were used both in the facilities and corresponding cost analyses. In Exhibit V.14 footnotes are shown where master plan information bas been used. . As shown, Alternative 1 was estimated to cost approximately $117.6 million throughout the planning period. In contrast, Alternative 2 is estimated to cost $152.2 million over the same period. Obviously, the lower cost alternative would rank first in preference followed by Alternative 2. This does not imply that improvements contemplated in Alternative 2 are not worth the costs. Rather, analyses concerning the value of additional airport facilities are performed as a part of the overall alternative evaluation. Sociopolitical Acceptability The sociopolitical acceptability of the two alternatives were examined on an individual airport basis. In the Downstate study region,. many general aviation airports near populated areas are under pressure from various citizen's groups to diminish noise associated with airport operations. Often,. the issue of noise is all that is considered by some factions. For this reason,. the overall contribution of general aviation to a community should be considered in determining the relative value of a local airport, and further. system-wide recommendetions for improvement. lhis selection of the alternatives analysis is organized to include the following topics: lhe Value of General Aviation in the Downstate Sociopolitical Acceptability of Alternatives The first topic examines the overall contribution of general aviation to the region,. both positive and negative. lhe second topic applies the local considerations concerning airport improvement to facility recommendations of the alternatives. These qualitative factors are quantified to the greatest extent possible in the matrix analysis at the end of the chapter. . VALUE OF GENERAL AVIATION IN 'IRE DClWNSTATE General aviation is the term used to designate all civil flying done other than by commercial airlines. General aviation is usually divided into business flying (transportation not for hire). commercial flying. instructional flying, and personal flying. In 1980. general aviation accounted for about 55 times the number of planes, accumulated nearly twice the mileage. and flew more than four times the number of hours V-45 Exhibit V.14 - AIRPORT FACILITY CCSTS BY ALTERNATIVES ($OOO'S) Alternative/Airport Runway Taxiway Apron Building Lighting & Navaids /oI.iscel1aneous Total Alternative 1 Baypor: $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 684.3 $ J91.0 $ 0.0 $ 15.5 $ 890.8 Brookhaven $ 1,781.3 $ 0.0 $ 1,832.0 $ 937.5 $ 550.0 $ 128.0 $ 5,228.8 Dutchess County $ 1,334.0 $ 293.4 $ 3,016.4 $ 4,837.5 $ 219.8 $ 46.1 $ 9,747.2 . East Hampton1 $ 1,839.9 $ 462.0 $ 418.6 $ 1,125.0 $ 130.5 $ 881. 5 $ 4,857.5 Elizabeth Field $ 1,226.0 $ 388.0 $ 61.0 $ 99.5 $ 100.0 $ 12.3 $ 1,886.8 ) Flushing1 $ 546.0 $ 98.2 $ 478.4 $ 998.2 $ 259.5 $ 218.4 $ 2,.A8.7 LID $ 550.4 $ 481. 8 $ 0.0 $ 212.0 $ 136.8 $ 10.0 $ 1,391.0 L.1. MacArthur1 $ 4,642.2 $ 2,272.9 $ 4,639.8 $ 8,250.0 $ 164.5 $ 1,051.5 $ 21,020.9 Orange County $ 1,733.3 $ 868.5 $ 1,467.6 $ 2,658.0 $ 680.0 $ 47.4 $ 7,454.8 Ramapo Valley $ 182.1 $ 0.0 $ 1,259.2 $ 269.5 $ 104.0 $ 75.6 $ 1,890.4 Republic $ 3,085.8 $ 0.0 $ 5,428.0 $ 3,710.0 $ 0.0 $ 1,770.0 $ 13,993.8 Stewart $ 4,456.0 $ 0.0 $ 1,178.8 $ 0.0 $ 155.0 $ 27.8 $ 5,817.6 Suffolk County1 $ 4,750.0 $ 520.8 $ 510.6 $ 1,275.0 $ 330.0 $ 19.2 $ 7,405.6 Sullivan County $ 1,575.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 751.0 $ 32.5 $ 0.0 $ 2,358.5 Warwick $ 471.7 $ 295.2 $ 68.1 $ 298.0 $ 112.0 $ 210.02 $ 1,445.0 Westchester County1 $ 2,749.8 $ 5,931.3 $ 2,614.6 $ 11,920.7 $ 46.6 $ 7,194.7 $ 30,457.7 Grand Total Alternative 1 $117,564.3 Al ternative 2 New Coram $ 554.7 $ 303.3 $ 987.5 $ 1,020.5 $ 219.0 $ 1,554.03 $ 4,639.0 New Putnam County $ 2,555.5 $ 1,788.9 $ 6,633.2 $ 15,084.0 $ 900.0 $ 3,133.84 $ 30,095.4 Warwick $ 471.7 $ 295.2 $ 253.8 $ 48.0 $ 112.0 $ 180.12 $ 1,360.8 Grand Total Alternative 2 $152,204.5 1 Costs fran existing master plans with the exclusion of apron, conventional hangar, and T-hangar costs. 2 Includes 17 acres of additional land at $10,OOO/acre. 3 Includes 150 acres of land at $10,OOO/acre. . 4 Includes 300 acres of land at $10,OOO/acre. V-46 as the scheduled airlines. It also accounted for 75 percent of all civil aircraft operations at airports with FAA control towers. Over 90 percent of the airports available to the public are used exclusively by general aviation aircraft. y The airports serving general aviation in the Downstate New York region are varied. Many in the Hudson Valley area are small, usually with a single runway and only minimal navigation aids. They serve primarily as a base for a few aircraft. There are notable exceptiona, however. A few general aviation airports located in or near major metropolitan areaa, such as Long Island's Republic Airport, handle extremely high volumes of traffic (particularly business and executive aircraft) and are busier and more congested than all but the largest commercial airports. . An important aspect of general aviation airports is that they serve many functiona for a wide variety of aircraft. Some general aviation airports provide isolated communities with valuable links to other population centers, others with services such as police work, rescue, medical aid, air cargo, air taxi, charter passenger service, and corporate transportation. Each of these activities contributes significantly toward a better quality of lif~ The principal role of general aviation airports, however, is to provide facilities for privately owned aircraft used for business and personal functions. Business flying represents the largest categ02:y of general aviation. In addition to personally owned aircraft, many of which are used for business, there are thousands of business owned aircraft that are used solely for this purpos~ These aircraft make milliona of flights each year, tranaporting people and products, and equally important, supplies and parts to keep productiona linea moving. Of Fortune Magazine's top 500 corporations in 1982, 373 own and operate corporate aircraft fleets. These 373 companies employ 89 percent of the total number of employees of the top 500 companies, accotmt for 91 percent of the total net sales, own 92 percent of the total assets, and have 95 percent of the net incom~ General aviation also includes the air taxi, charter, and some commuter operations. Each year more and more people save time and money by chartering or renting general aviation aircraft. These operators use light twin-engine aircraft to offer passenger, freight, and mail tranaportation service to many communities not serviced by the major airlines. For all these reasons, communities are gJ.VJ.l1g more attention to the general aviation portion of the industry. Its contributions to regional economic development are increasingly significant. More and more businesses and industries are using general aviation aircraft as business tools. These aircraft operators simply refuse to locate plants or headquarters in communities which do not have aviation facilities adequate for the use of their company-owned aircraft. There is also ample evidence throughout the U.s. that many businesses prefer to locate facilities in the immediate vicinity of an airport. Corporations locate their facilities in order to realize the fullest possible savings in time. - The cost of good airport facilities, may at first seem large, but usually they are quite small if one considers the annual payrolls which industrial aviation users bring to the community. If there are a number of industrial users in the community, the citizena may be drawing wages that far exceed the community investment in the airport. The economic contrillution of an airport to the community which it serves can be measured directly through such means as employee payrolls, receipts from the sale of aviation fuel, income from the rental of hangar space, and excise tax from aircraft based at the airport. Indirectly, the benefits of being able to expedite the tranaportation of people and goods accrue throughout the national and local econanies. V-47 On the negative side of general aviation airports is the noise issue. Aircraft noise is recognized as the most critical environmental consideration surrounding airports. and has become the single most controversial issue in community acceptance and approval of airport related development proj ects. n..e problem. in part. however. is one of land use. Land use decisions are usually beyond control of the FAA or the airport managers. Zoning , and land use planning are the responsibility of local jurisdictions. and many jurisdictions have not applied land use controls to prevent incompatible residential communities from growing up near airports. . The particular sources of the noise and the message it conveys are important determinants of a community's annoyance. For example. a community with an Air Force base may experience high aircraft noise levels. These levels may be acceptable to that community because the base is an important economic element in the community and a sense of patriotism is evoked by the militazy base's role in the national defense. On one hand. some citizens resent the noise because they feel they gain vezy little from the airport. while others will tolerate the noise based on their perception of the airport as an econcmic asset and conveniently located aviation facility. At the present time. citizens with complaints about airport noise have recourse only to the airport owner. While the FAA and air carriers have some responsibility for mitigating aircraft noise. only the airport operator is legally liable. In some cases the courts ha:ve found the airports guilty of excess noise and ha:ve forced them to pay nuisance and damage claims for noise. To reduce the problem of aircraft noise impacts. airports can institute noise abatement programs that involve restricting aircraft flight patha or hours of operation so as to reduce noise impact on residential areas. The FAA has also instituted an airport noise compatibility program under the joint sponsorship of the airport and the affected units of government. '!his program has as its objective the reduction of adverse aircraft noise impact through such controls as property acquisition. noise easement. land use zoning. and subdivision regulations. The airport is. in many respects. a public utility. It is a necessazy element of a thorough and well-balanced transportation system and gives a community rapid national access and the amenities that go with such access. The association of business and industzy with the airport. the community. and the surrounding service area. provides a definite economic asset. A valuable dollar flow results. which in turn, broadens the tax base and provides direct and indirect benefits for the state. region, county. community. and individual. This open invitation to industry is an investment in the future. Furthermore. it is a way of diversifying. expanding, and strengthening the local econcmy. SOCIo-POLITICAL ACCEPI'ABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES . In the Downstate Region. there are certain factors which can help to explain the general attitudes t,",ard airport and aviation developnent. First. the population of the Downstate Region is not evenly distributed throughout the Region. New York City has a population of almost eight million people living in its five boroughs; this is somewhat less than half the population of the entire State. The population within the remainder of the Region is more widely dispersed the farther one is from the city. that is. towards the eastern end of Long Island and north of the city. V-48 Concerns about existing airport activity and further airport development tend to be greater within the more populated areas of the Region. In these areas, there is residential development in the environs of the airports. There is also limited or no opportunity for airports to acquire more land to mitigate perceived undesirable effects of aviation activity. , A second factor is the disposable income available for general aviation activities. An indicator of such disposable income is the Personal Per Capita Income of residents in the Downstate Region. The four counties in the State with the highest level of Personal Per Capita Income. Nasssu. Westchester. New York. and Rockland. are located in the Downstate Region. As a result. there is a higher level of demand for general aviation services. . A third factor is the number of major corporations which have headquarters or major operations in the Downstate Region. Many of these corporations maintain one or more airplanes to move executives and clients in and out of the Region. In addition, the eastern end of Long Island has become a resort area for the fairly affluent and this also generates aviation activity. A fourth factor relative to general aviation attitudes is environmental concerns. mainly noise. The noise of airplanes. particularly larger aircraft and jets. can be disturbing and bothersome. Although noise problems occur most frequently with scheduled air carrier rather than general aviation activities. and although the noisiest aircraft can no longer legally be flown, the frequency and type of operations at airports can be disturbing in surrounding residential areas. In view of the factors given above. including other factors such as the cost of land acquisition for expanding existing airports or building new ones. and the difficulties privately owned airport operators encounter in trying to maintain and/or improve their eirports. an assessment of the sociopolitical acceptability of the two alternatives can be made. The major difference between the two alternatives. the Limited Development Alternative and the New Airports Alternative. is the inclusion of the two new reliever airports. one in Putnam County. and one in Suffolk County. in the latter alternative. Without these additions. the two alternatives will have the same level of sociopolitical acceptability. Moreover. since both alternatives include only minor projects and groundside improvements at existing airports and do not include projects to increase capacity. they would be viewed favorably in this respect. . As noted. the New Airports Alternative includes two reliever airports. Since there has been considerable opposition to expansion at existing airports. particularly the building of parallel runweys for general aviation aircraft. it can be assumed there will be opposition to building these reliever airports. Mitigating this assessment is the fact that the two relievers would be built in less densely populated areas of the Region and would accommodate smaller general aviation aircraft and not the noisier larger. jet aircraft. . Taking into account the above discussion, Alternative 1. the Limited Development Alternative. is rated slightly more acceptable since it does not provide for major expansions at existing airports or for building new airports. and is therefore consistent with existing attitudes which have been formulated over a number of years. Alternative 2. the New Airports Alternative. is rated slightly less acceptable because of the uncertainty of gaining support and approval for building the two reliever airports. v-49 Stmmmy This section provides a summary of evaluation factors impacting each of the alternatives. The list below was compiled from the factors eY.a.mined in the previous sections. , Alte=ati:ve 1 4 Alternative 1, ''Limited Development", is synonymous with the existing system of aizports, with no airfield expansions. A reallocation of based aircraft and operations under this alternative resulted in an unsatisfied demand total of 853 aircraft. As shown in Exhibit V.8, there are only three areas where VFR airspace reservation area overlaps exist. There are a total of 33 IFR reservation area overlaps in this alternative. The total environmental impact of the system aizports for Alternative 1, was 96 with an average impact of 5.3. ('!he range for impacts is 4, meaning a low impact and 12, meaning a high impact.) The total system development cost through the year 2005 is $117.6 million for this al terna ti ve. Since there is limited development with this alternative, no public opposition is foreseen. Alte=ative 2 This alternative involved the construction of two new aizports to accommodate capacity problems. With Alternative 2, the reallocation of demand resulted in an unsatisfied demand of 434 aircraft, fewer than Alternative 1. . This alternative has the same number of VFR overlap areas as Alternative 1. . Alternative 2 has the same IFR overlaps as Alternative I, with the addition of IFR airspace overlaps for the two proposed reliever aizports, for a total of 37 overlaps. Alternative 2 would accommodate more demand but would interject more operations into an already overcrowded enroute airspace utilization system. V-50 The total environmental impact of Alternative 2 was 108 with an average impact of 6.0, higher than Alternative 1. The total construction cost forecast for this alternative is $152.2 million. . Since public opposition has been voiced in regard to existing airport expansion, the same results may be seen if new airports are built in the region. , This concludes the evaluation of alternatives. The next step in the system planning process is to select a recommended alternative for use by the FAA, State, and local policy and decision--makers. , V-51