Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 6 - Airport Alternatives I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES "'''. :5J,J}?'.c5"JJAl'i ~>~.-... ..~. ""-----: .' ~~ HOME or PWC.AN l'iLAND I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SlBAST~ ~~ .. -- (:" - - . -~'''''.'' ---" HOME Of PWCAN ISlAND Chapter Six - Airport Alternatives INTRODUCTION Once the facilities required for the planning period have been identified, the next step in the master planning process is to evaluate the various ways those facilities can be provided. The possible combinations of alternatives are countless, so some intuitive judgment must be used to identify those alternatives, which have the greatest potential for implementation. Three major elements must be considered in the development alternatives at Sebastian Municipal Airport. These include alternatives for the airfield, general aviation facilities, and navigational aids. In addition, the utilization of the remaining airport property to provide revenue support for the airport and benefit the economic development and well-being of the Sebastian area must be considered after the development alternatives are defined. Each element inter-relates and affects the development potential of the others. Therefore, all areas must be examined both individually and then coordinated as a whole to ensure the final plan is functional and efficient, as well as cost effective. When analyzing alternatives for development, consideration must first be given to a "do nothing" or "no build" alternative. These alternatives are not without major impacts and costs to the public; they are addressed in the following sections of this chapter. The alternatives considered are compared using environmental, economic, and aviation factors to determine which of the alternatives will best fulfill the local aviation needs. With this information, as well as the input and direction of the Technical Review Committee, a final airport concept can evolve for refinement into a realistic development plan. General In analyzing and comparing the benefits of various development alternatives, It IS Important to consider the consequences of no future development at Sebastian Municipal. The "do-nothing" alternative essentially considers keeping the airport in its present condition and not doing any improvements to the existing facilities. The primary result of this alternative would be the inability of the airport to safely accommodate the existing demand, much less the projected. It should be pointed out here that any development proposed in the master plan evolves from an analysis of projected needs over a set period of time. Even though the needs were determined by reliable methods, it cannot be assumed that future events will not change these needs. The master plan attempts to develop a viable scheme for meeting the needs brought about by projected demands for the next 20 years. No scheme should be adopted that would assume expansion beyond the 20-year period or that would require expensive commitments prior to the certainty of need. However, the plan should allow for flexibility to expand beyond the plan, should the need arise. In addition, no plan of action should be developed that is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the City, which has a vested interest in the results of any development or lack thereof. Sebastian Municipal should be developed so that the facilities accommodate the demand and minimize any operational constraints. While these objectives may not be all inclusive, they should provide a point of reference in the alternatives evaluation process. In the preceding chapter, both airside and landside facility requirements were identified for the 20-year planning period. While the previous sections have identified and quantified facility needs, they have not addressed the options for providing these requirements, nor have they explored issues of operational efficiency and community acceptance of meeting the identified needs of the airport over the planning period. This chapter reviews each of the identified needs and discusses the pros and cons of various options designed to address the facility requirements previously discussed. 2002 6-1 I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SlBAST!AN ~ ~...s::.~ HOME Of PUK:AN lSlAND The facility requirements indicated the need for various airfield improvements, including pavement rehabilitations. Without improvements and rehabilitation of existing pavements, areas will fall into disrepair. This would seriously affect the capability of the airfield to continue serving users and the community. Expanding facilities at the airport is also necessary over the next 20-years. To ignore this would restrict the growth of aviation in the local area and region. This would, in turn, reflect on commerce and economic growth in the regIOn. Thus, the "do-nothing" alternative is inconsistent with the long-term goals of the City of Sebastian. In addition, the airport has made assurances to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in accepting past federal grants for airport improvement projects that the facility will be operated at all times in a safe and serviceable condition. It would represent an irresponsible action affecting the long-term viability of the airport and the airport's service area. Therefore, the "do-nothing" alternative is not considered prudent or feasible. The ultimate goal of the master planning process is to provide the City of Sebastian with an assessment of the adequacy and capabilities of the airport as well as the identification of the best options available for addressing future development needs at the facility. To accomplish this goal it is necessary to identify and evaluate alternatives for meeting the needs identified in the previous chapters and ultimately provide the City with a planning framework on which to base future airport development decisions. Airport Considerations The ultimate objective is to develop balanced airside and landside facilities to serve all segments of the forecast aviation demand. Prior to defining and evaluating specific airport alternatives, development objectives to guide the evaluation should be identified. The City of Sebastian wants to market, develop, and operate the airport so as to better the economic base of the surrounding area. The successful realization of this role can be facilitated if the City focuses on the following objectives: + + + Obtain the maximum service level of the airfield to the community. Operate the airport as an attractive, easy-to-use, safe, and environmentally compatible facility. Market and develop the airport facilities and available land as unique business opportunities. In addressing these objectives, development of facilities should be undertaken in such a manner as to minimize existing and potential operational constraints. Flexibility in airport development is essential to assure adequate capacity should market conditions change unexpectedly. In approaching the analysis of alternatives to meet identified airport facility needs, it is necessary to keep in mind a number of factors, or considerations that impact and influence future development at Sebastian Municipal. These considerations form a basis for the initial identification of options as well as providing a set of issues that need to be kept in mind throughout the review and selection of alternatives. It should be noted that the goal of the Master Plan is to mitigate to the maximum extent possible all of the factors that adversely impact the airport's ability to meet demand or to comply with airport standards. While this goal is attainable, it must often be weighed against the financial, social, and political costs of doing so. As a result, it is possible that the result of the alternatives analysis may be to find that not all of the identified facility requirements at the airport can be fully addressed and some must be left unfulfilled or only partially mitigated. A number of factors must be considered in the alternatives analysis, and some of the more significant of these that impact or influence the alternatives are listed below. + Only a few parcels, some impacted by environmental conditions remam for future aviation related development at the airport. 2002 6-2 I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SlBAST~ ~' . .._'.'..... '" --. -..,.- '~"'-', -- HOME Of PWCAN IStAND + The Sebastian Municipal Golf Course takes up a significant portion of the developable land to the south and east of the airfield. + No property acquisitions can be made to the existing airport property boundary that would enhance the aviation or non-aviation related development. + Any development in the infield portions of the existing airfield configuration will generate significant difficulties with respect to airside and landside access for all tenants. + The City of Sebastian is on the verge of exhausting all available commercial and industrial land within the City limits (outside of the airport property line). The preceding considerations have been factored into the identification of potential alternatives to address the facility needs identified. These issues should also be kept in mind when reviewing the following sections due to the impact they may have on the options that have been identified. These concerns are very real, and if money were not a concern, they could certainly be mitigated; however, funding is a considerable factor in any analysis of options and, as such, many of the alternatives are designed to mitigate issues without having to undertake the extensive relocation or reconfiguration of the entire airport property. The following sections outline options that were identified, and discuss the positive and negative features of each. AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES Airfield facilities are, by their nature, the focal point of the airport complex. Because of their primary role and the fact that physically, they dominate airport land use, airfield facility needs can be the most critical factor in the identification of viable airport development alternatives. In particular, the runway system requires the greatest commitment of land area and has the greatest effect on the alternatives evaluation. Previously, the demand/capacity analysis showed that the airport, even without improvements, would not experience any problems related to either airfield capacity or delay during the planning period. However, two factors of the airfield system were identified in the facility requirements chapter as being deficient for the planning period. These include the existing pavement conditions and the ultimate configuration of taxiways for airfield access. The following sections will analyze alternatives, which provide options to improve these conditions. Runway Alternatives The alternative to re-open Runway 9-27 and close Runway 13-31 was selected in the 1993 Master Plan as a result of numerous public sessions focused on achieving compatibility between the airport and community. Selection of this option incorporated a dual runway system with Runway 9-27 as the primary and Runway 4-22 as the crosswind. It was determined that Runway 4-22 provided better wind coverage than Runway 13-31, and offered less impact on the residents from overflights. In addition to its inclusion in the 1993 Master Plan, an Environmental Assessment for the re-opening of Runway 9-27 was also approved as part of the study. Unfortunately, eight years later, this alternative has never been realized. The primary reason Runway 9-27 has not re-opened was due to the costs required under the previous analysis. Nonetheless, the option of re-opening 9- 27 is still appealing, not only for the reasons included in the previous master plan, but also due to many other advantages that can be realized for the airport and community as a whole. The interest now is to re-evaluate the option of opening Runway 9-27, with respect to the existing configuration. The most important element of this re-evaluation is to determine if the re-opening is still possible, primarily with respect to the available funding. During this re-evaluation, a significant cost saving measure was realized with respect to the airport configuration. A crosswind runway is recommended at an airport when a runway orientation cannot provide 95 percent wind 2002 6-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SEBASTIAN ~~ HOME Of PUICAN ISlAND coverage for any aircraft forecasted to use the airport on a regular basis. This 95 percent coverage is based on a crosswind that does not exceed 10.5-knots for aircraft with Airport Reference Codes (ARC) of A-I and B-I. A 13- knot crosswind component is used for the ARCs A-II and B-II. The current (Twin Otter) and future (King Air 200) critical aircraft for Sebastian Municipal share an ARC of B-II. Based on the wind rose data, Runway 4-22 currently provides 97.2 percent coverage for a 13-knot wind. Likewise, Runway 13-31 or the alignment for Runway 9-27 could also provide coverage over 95 percent for the 13-knot wind. However, as documented in the facility requirements, the need for a crosswind runway is required for aircraft with ARCs of A-lor B-1, since none of the three alignments can provide this individually. As such, any runway used to provide the 95 percent crosswind coverage would only be required to meet the design standards of ARC B-I. Under the previous master plan, once re-opened, Runway 9-27 would serve as the primary and Runway 4-22 as the crosswind. However, due to the reconstruction of Runway 4-22 in 1997 to a length of 4,024 feet, as well as the more recent improvements to lighting, and the fact that it provides the necessary crosswind coverage for the airport's critical aircraft, this runway is now considered the primary. Under the 10.5-knot wind analysis, the two runways provide nearly identical coverage with Runway 4-22 and Runway 9-27 providing 91.1 percent and 92.0 percent respectively. Therefore, the following alternatives analysis will re-evaluate the re-opening of Runway 9- 27 or the preservation of Runway 13-31 as the crosswind runway. In doing so, this evaluation will incorporate the design standards for ARC B-1 versus B-II, on the crosswind runway. Nearly all of the aircraft with an ARC of A-lor B-1 are categorized as small airplanes (less than 12,500 pounds) with less than 10 passenger seats. A runway length of 3,080 feet will accommodate 95 percent of the small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats. This calculation, which is based on the FAA's Airport Design software, is reflected in Table 5-3 of the preceding chapter. However, the FAA Airports District Office (ADO) in Orlando recommended using a length of 3,200 feet. The ADO made this recommendation to provide a crosswind runway with 80 percent of the length of the primary runway (which is 4,024 feet). Therefore, 3,200 feet will be used in alternatives analyses. A width of 60 feet is required for visual and not lower than % of a mile visibility runways, serving aircraft with an ARC ofB-I. However, because the airport serves B-II aircraft and both Runway 13-31 and the pavement for Runway 9-27 are 150 feet wide, a runway width of 75 will be analyzed in all of the crosswind runway alternatives. In addition to enhancing the safety of the facility, this will preserve the option to utilize this runway for Design Group II aircraft in the future (under visual and not lower than % mile visibility conditions). The following sections address three crosswind alternatives for Sebastian Municipal. Alternative A - Re-opening of Runway 9-27 This alternative is nearly identical to the selected alternative of the 1993 Master Plan. The primary difference being that under this version, Runway 9-27 would serve as the crosswind runway for the airfield, thus would only need to provide an overall length of 3,200 feet. As described in the previous section, the width of this runway would be 75 feet wide. The runway has been aligned along the centerline of the existing ISO-foot wide pavement, to balance the clearance between existing airport structures and the transitional surfaces associated with the runway. It is recommended that the removal of any runway pavement coincide with the construction of a parallel taxiway so that credit can be received against this addition of pavement. This alternative is depicted on Exhibit 6-1. 2002 6-4 I. SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SlBAST!AN ~., -.p ~~. , -,- '- .-....; HOME Of PtUCAN ISlAND I I Because of the small aircraft designation (less than 12,SOO pounds), Runway 9-27 will only require a 20: I approach slope surface for either visual or non-precision instrument approaches. Thus, the Runway 9 threshold has been configured so that the approach slope surface will provide more than the required IS feet of vertical clearance over public roads specified in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77. This ensures that the alignment of Airport Drive West is not affected by this alternative. On the opposite end, the runway length of 3,200 feet places the approach surface for Runway 27 in a position that allows for more than IS feet of clearance within the existing airport property line. This preserves the ability to allow future access into the currently vacant area located between the approach ends of Runway 22 and Runway 27. I I I I The following sections address both positive and negative considerations for this alternative. These pros and cons are summarized in Table 6-1. Positive Considerations I I As detailed in the previous master plan, one of the more significant advantages associated with the re-opening of Runway 9-27 will be the ability to serve aviation operations while creating less of an impact to the adjacent residential communities. In addition, the re-opening of Runway 9-27 will create an airfield configuration that will open up nearly three times the developable area to the north (143 acres versus 48 acres). I I Currently the City of Sebastian is approaching a point where no more land within the City limits (outside of the airport property) is available for industrial development. Under this alternative, the airfield will provide approximately an additional 100 acres ofland that would be developable as aviation and non-aviation industrial/commercial land. It is felt that this significant increase will ultimately outweigh the additional costs associated with re-opening Runway 9-27 through the community benefits it will provide. These benefits are primarily expected to result from the form of additional jobs and tax base. I I I I With respect to pavement conditions, the condition of the Runway 9-27 alignment is nearly the exact same as that of Runway 13-31. The U.S. Navy constructed all four ofthe original runways at Sebastian in 1943 to a length of 4,000 feet and a width of ISO feet. It has been estimated that the pavement structure for each contains a one and a half inch asphalt surface with eight inches of base. Since that time, there have been no significant improvements to the pavement of Runway 13-31 or the Runway 9-27 alignment. Therefore, the pavement of the old Runway 9-27 alignment will not require any more or less reconstruction than that of Runway 13-31. In fact, the reconstruction of Runway 9-27 can occur without the need to shut down Runway 13-31. I An additional benefit to the Runway 9-27 and Runway 4-22 configuration is that this layout will significantly simplify the taxiway system for the airfield. Currently a majority of the airfield development is between the approach end of Runway 13 and the alignment of Runway 9-27. A full-length parallel taxiway on the north side of Runway 9-27 would allow unimpeded aircraft movements to the ends of Runway 9, 22, and 27. Access to Runway 4 would still require taxiing aircraft to cross the Runway 9 threshold. If Runway 13-31 remains open, only half of the runway ends can be accessed without crossing a runway. Similarly, two parallel taxiways to Runway 13- 31 would have to be constructed in order to serve aviation related development on both sides of the runway, and yet crossing runways would still be required half ofthe time. I I I 2002 6-6 I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SEB~T!AN ~ ~~ HOME Of mlCAN ISlAND I Negative Considerations I Obviously, the re-opening of Runway 9-27 will require the relocation of the facilities located at each end. On the Runway 9 end, there is a building (approximately 10,000 square feet) occupied by Velocity Inc. and Golden Horn Aviation. This building is located on the south portion of the leasehold held by Velocity. A relocation of this facility, which would also include four acres of Velocity's leasehold, is depicted on Exhibit 6-1. The relocation of this building incorporated input from Velocity so that it would not interfere with their future plans. On the Runway 27 end, the entire JS Aviation leasehold (approximately two acres) will also need to be relocated. This would include the relocation of approximately 40,000 square feet of aircraft parking ramp, the 3,700 square foot building, the fuel farm, parking lot, and a shade hangar. ! I I I I Because of the location of the approach surface to Runway 27, it will also be required for the entire II th hole and at least the tee-box of the I ih hole at the Sebastian Municipal Golf Course to be relocated. Similarly, there will be a requirement to remove trees at both ends of the runway that would penetrate the approach slope. Additionally, for the approach to Runway 9, two of the power poles located along the right-of-way for Roseland Road will have to either be lowered or removed and the utility placed underground. I I TABLE 6-1 COMPARISON OF ISSUES - RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE A Pros Cons Less impact to residential communities. Requires relocation of two tenants. Triples land available for development. Requires changes to City golf course. Same pavement condition as Runway 13-31. Requires tree removal. Does not require dual parallel taxiways. Requires changes to two power poles. Source: THE LP A GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001. I I Estimated Costs I I I I The cost estimate for this alternative is based on data reviewed for current or recent similar projects. The details of the alternative development were consolidated into several general cost categories. Unit costs were determined for each category and then applied to the unit requirements for the alternative. Table 6-2 summarizes the development categories and cost estimates for the alternative. I I I I 2002 6-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SEBASTIJ\N ~._' ~- ,"-"" -. ----. - .~... .'-'. HOME. Of PWCAN ISLAND TABLE 6-2 COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY - RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE A Item Amount Unit Cost Total Cost Asphalt Pavement Removal 22,000 SY $5.00 $110,000.00 Asphalt Pavement Reclamation 26,000 SY $3.00 $78,000.00 Unclassified Excavation 5,000 SY $8.00 $40,000.00 Proof rolling 26,000 SY $1.00 $26,000.00 Limerock Base Course (3 ") 2,300 CY $30.00 $69,000.00 Bituminous Surface Course (3") 4,500 tons $45.00 $202,500.00 Bituminous Prime Coat 6,800 gallons $2.00 $13,600.00 Reflectorized Pavement Marking 5,000 SF $1.00 $5,000.00 Drainage Lump Sum $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Grassing 8 acres $2,000.00 $16,000.00 Sodding 7,000 SY $3.00 $21,000.00 Topsoil Placement 3,800 CY $5.00 $19,000.00 Mobilization $43,057.00 Contingencies (14% of Construction Costs) $86,114.00 Engineering (Design, Bidding, Construction, Inspection) $148,854.00 Relocation of Velocity Leasehold and Building $225,000.00 Relocation of JS Aviation Leasehold and Facilities $300,000.00 Golf Course Renovations (111ll & I r hole) $250,000.00 Lower or remove two utility poles (approach to Runway 9) $75,000.00 Tree clearing for both approaches (approximately 17 acres) $25,000.00 TOTAL $1,768,125.00 Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001. Alternative B - Rehabilitate Existing Runway 13-31 Currently Runway 13-3 I is 4,021 feet long at a width of ISO feet. While it has been shown that this full- length is not required, this alternative looks to preserve the existing pavement available at the airport. This alternative does however recommend the removal of half of the runway pavement, thereby providing an overall width of 75 feet. Exhibit 6-2 provides a depiction of this runway alternative. Essentially, this alternative makes no changes to the airfield configuration, with the exception of the eventual pavement removal. Again it is recommended that the removal of any runway pavement coincide with the construction of a parallel taxiway so that credit can be received against this addition of pavement. The following sections address both positive and negative considerations for this alternative. These pros and cons are summarized in Table 6-3. 2002 6-8 I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SlB~T~ ~....~~-, ~~~ HOMI Of rtL.KAN tslAND I Positive Considerations I This alternative can be considered a no-build option for the runway system. It obviously benefits from the fact that the airport is currently operating under this configuration, which more than adequately provides the necessary wind coverage. The costs associated with reconstructing the existing pavement structure are similar to the unit costs that would be born for any other pavement at the airport (with the exception of Runway 4-22). An additional advantage to this alternative exists with the fact that no tenants will have to be relocated. I I Negative Considerations I Foremost, a significant negative aspect to this alternative is that preserving the existing Runway 13-31 configuration does not address any of the issues or concerns that were discussed in the previous master plan. By maintaining the current airport configuration, aircraft will continue to over fly some of the more densely populated neighborhoods surrounding the airport. Not only would this ignore the community concerns, it would negate the validity of the previous master plan, including the environmental assessment element of that study. I I. I A serious impact associated with this alternative is that it severely limits the amount of developable land available at the airport. Eventually this would restrict the amount of aviation and non-aviation revenue that could be generated on the airfield. On the operational side, parallel taxiways on the north and south side of Runway 13-31 would eventually be required to provide airfield access to the developable areas. These parallel taxiways are the only way to minimize the number of runway crossings. In addition, the development of the infield areas would require landside access to disrupt the north-south taxiway (at a minimum), the east-west taxiway, or both, resulting in significant taxi distances for most airport users. I 'I I I TABLE 6-3 COMPARISON OF ISSUES - RUNWAY AL TERNA TIVE B Pros Cons Maintains existing airfield configuration. Still impacts residential communities. Provides more than adequate wind coverage Limits the amount of developable land. Does not impact existing tenants. Eventually requires additional taxiways. Does not disrupt airfield development. Ultimately increases taxi distances. Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001 I Estimated Costs I The cost estimate for this alternative is based on data reviewed for current or recent similar projects. The details of the alternative development were consolidated into several general cost categories. Unit costs were determined for each category and then applied to the unit requirements for the alternative. Table 6-4 summarizes the development categories and the cost estimates for the alternative. I I I 2002 I 6-10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SlBAST~ ~~ .r> ~ _ ",~~ -- HOME Of PWCAN &AND TABLE 6-4 COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY - RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE B Item Amount Unit Cost Total Cost Asphalt Pavement Removal 34,000 SY $5.00 $170,000.00 Asphalt Pavement Reclamation 34,000 SY $3.00 $102,000.00 Unclassified Excavation 5,000 SY $8.00 $40,000.00 Proof rolling 34,000 SY $1.00 $34,000.00 Limerock Base Course (3") 2,800 CY $30.00 $84,000.00 Bituminous Surface Course (3 ") 5,500 tons $45.00 $247,500.00 Bituminous Prime Coat 10,000 gallons $2.00 $20,000.00 Reflectorized Pavement Marking 5,000 SF $1.00 $5,000.00 Drainage Lump Sum $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Grassing 8 acres $2,000.00 $16,000.00 Sodding 7,000 SY $3.00 $21,000.00 Topsoil Placement 3,800 CY $5.00 $19,000.00 Mobilization $54, 145.00 Contingencies (14% of Construction Costs) $108,290.00 Engineering (Design, Bidding, Construction, Inspection) $187,187.00 TOTAL $1,123,122.00 Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001. Alternative C - Modify and Rehabilitate Runway 13-31 Under this alternative, the length of Runway 13-31 would be reduced from the current 4,021 feet to 3,200 feet, while the width would remain the same as the other alternatives, at 75 feet. This reduced length would begin at the same threshold as the current Runway 13 end and would extend to a point just beyond the intersection with Runway 4-22. This layout is depicted in Exhibit 6-3. As with Alternative B, this option preserves the existing airfield configuration and pavement. In addition to removing half of the runway pavement, for an overall width of 75 feet, it is recommended that the remaining runway length (921 feet) ultimately be removed. With the exception of runway length, this alternative does not change the airfield. To obtain credit for the pavement removal, it is recommended that any pavement removal occur with the construction of either one or both parallel taxiways. The following sections address both positive and negative considerations for this alternative. These pros and cons are summarized in Table 6-5. 2002 6-11 I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SlBAST~ ~., ___ ,r- ".;:' _'_' - .~'.'~ - -.- .' ttOMl Of PUJCAN ISLAND I Positive Considerations I All of the benefits associated with Alternative B are retained with this option. However, due to the decreased runway length, this alternative has additional advantages. The most obvious of which is the reduced costs to reconstruct the runway pavement, which is reflected in the construction estimate. Also, the ability to remove more pavement for potential credit is a positive aspect to this alternative. The description for this alternative recommended the removal of the unused portion of the runway, when needed to obtain credit for the construction of any new impervious surface, such as the parallel taxiways. When this occurs, the taxiway connecting the leasehold of JS Aviation to the end of Runway 31 will no longer be required. Similarly, the partial parallel taxiway between Runway 4-22 and Runway 31 will not be needed. I I I I It should be noted that while a parallel taxiway is shown on both sides of the Runway 13-3 I , the current partial parallel is to a width of 50 feet and with a centerline separation of 400 feet. The future parallel taxiways will only need to have a centerline separation of 240 feet and a width of 35 feet. This smaller separation becomes particularly important for this option since it provides an additional 160 feet of developable land in the infield areas. I I A more significant benefit related to the reduced runway length of this option relates to the impacts it has on the surrounding community. By moving the threshold of Runway 31 approximately 921 feet toward Runway 4-22, the traffic using this runway will also move. This lessens the impact that overflights to Runway 13-3 I have on the communities located to the east and southeast of the airport. This occurs because most aircraft would make their base leg turn (perpendicular to the final approach) earlier. While this will not eliminate community overflights, it should reduce the number and lessen the impact due to the higher altitude these aircraft will be on final approach. I I NeKative Considerations I While the overflight impact to surrounding communities would be reduced under this option, it still does not completely satisfy the issues or concerns that were discussed in the previous master plan. Thus, as with Alternative B, this configuration tends to disregard the community concerns, which as stated previously, ultimately contradicts the validity and effort of the previous master plan. I I Other negative characteristics associated with the shortened Runway 13-31 are the same as with Alternative B. This layout poses a severe limitation on the amount of land that is available on airport property for development, both aviation and non-aviation related. Although the overall lengths are decreased, this option will also ultimately require parallel taxiways on both sides of the runway to provide the safest access to and from future aviation related areas. Finally, this option still creates the problem associated with developing the infield areas with respect to landside access and taxi distances. I I I I 2002 I 6-13 I- I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SEBASTL\N ~., __ .r-" . ----:-....,~ -..;; .-, HOME. Of PWC.AN I::Sl.AND TABLE 6-5 COMPARISON OF ISSUES-RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE C Pros Cons Slightly reduces impact to community. Still negates benefits of previous study. Maintains existing airfield configuration. Limits the amount of developable land. Provides the required wind coverage. Eventually requires additional taxiways. Does not impact existing tenants. Ultimately increases taxi distances. Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001. Estimated Costs The cost estimate for this alternative is based on data reviewed for current or recent similar projects. The details of the alternative development were consolidated into several general cost categories. Unit costs were determined for each category and then applied to the unit requirements for the alternative. Table 6-6 summarizes the development categories and the cost estimates for the alternative. TABLE 6-6 COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY - RUNWAY ALTERNATIVE C Item Amount Unit Cost Total Cost Asphalt Pavement Removal 22,000 SY $5.00 $110,000.00 Asphalt Pavement Reclamation 26,000 SY $3.00 $78,000.00 Unclassified Excavation 5,000 SY $8.00 $40,000.00 Proofrolling 26,000 SY $1.00 $26,000.00 Limerock Base Course (3 ") 2,300 CY $30.00 $69,000.00 Bituminous Surface Course (3") 4,500 tons $45.00 $202,500.00 Bituminous Prime Coat 6,800 gallons $2.00 $13,600.00 Reflectorized Pavement Marking 5,000 SF $1.00 $5,000.00 Drainage Lump Sum $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Grassing 8 acres $2,000.00 $16,000.00 Sodding 7,000 SY $3.00 $21,000.00 Topsoil Placement 3,800 CY $5.00 $19,000.00 Mobilization $43,057.00 Contingencies (14% of Construction Costs) $86,114.00 Engineering (Design, Bidding, Construction, Inspection) $148,854.00 TOTAL $893,125.00 Source: THE LP A GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001. Selection of the Preferred Runway Alternative Typically at an airport like Sebastian Municipal, the most advantageous alternative would be the one that satisfies all of the requirements for the least cost. However, this does not necessarily translate into the most desirable or preferred alternative for the airport or community as a whole. Both ofthe alternatives, which utilize the existing Runway 13-31 alignment, would certainly be more cost-effective and pose less of an overall impact. However, by selecting either of the Runway 13-31 alternatives, it seems that nearly all of the effort that was put into the previous master plan, including the public participation, would be ignored. The re-opening of Runway 9-27 is a very good option for the airport and community. Unfortunately, it is also the most expensive option. 2002 6-14 1;- , I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SEBASTIAN ~.' ~~~ HOME Of PWCAN ISLAND Nonetheless, since the previous study, many things have changed affecting the development of the airport, possibly the most significant being the passage of the AIR-21legislation (reference financial feasibility text). A detailed Environmental Assessment (EA), which was conducted as part of the previous master plan, supported the re-opening of Runway 9-27 and closing of Runway 13-31. This EA was approved in a letter from the FAA dated March 9, 1994. Because a significant amount of time has passed since this assessment was conducted, and since this preferred alternative has a different runway length, the EA will need to be re-evaluated. Conversations with the FAA Airports District Office (ADO) in Orlando confirmed the fact that this process will simply require a detailed letter addressing each and every section of the previous EA. This letter will need to document whether or not there have been any changes that would impact the findings of the previous study. Based on the work conducted to date for this study, it is not anticipated that there have been any significant changes that would prevent the FAA from revalidating the EA to re-open Runway 9-27. With respect to the additional cost of the recommended alternative, it is the opinion of this consultant that the long-term benefits associated with this option far outweighs the additional expense. One cannot quantify in dollars the benefit associated when the community overflights are reduced and the related quality of life is enhanced. Conversely, it is easy to understand that three times the developable area on an airport will eventually produce more revenue for the airport and the City in the long run. As such, Alternative A has been selected as the preferred runway alternative for this study. Therefore, this runway configuration will be utilized throughout the rest of this alternatives analysis. Taxiway Alternatives Upon first examining a layout of Sebastian Municipal, one of the most notable deficiencies is the lack of taxiways to efficiently serve users of the airfield. Therefore, an important consideration when examining airfield alternatives is to properly plan for taxiways to serve not only existing activity, but also that which may develop in the future. Likewise, while airfield access is possible through use of the existing pavement, the ultimate goal should be to provide a parallel taxiway for each runway and the necessary connectors to efficiently link aircraft facilities to the runway system. Many of the taxiway characteristics are predetermined by FAA standards relative to the Airport Reference Code. The FAA requires a taxiway width of 25 feet for Design Group I aircraft and 35 feet for Design Group II. However, all of the taxiways at Sebastian Municipal will need to be 35 feet wide and constructed to pavement standards, which are capable of handling the future critical aircraft (King Air 200). Likewise, any future parallel taxiways need to have a runway centerline to taxiway centerline separation of at least 240 feet. This will preserve the option of providing non-precision approaches (with not lower than % of a mile approach visibility minimums) to each runway end. The following sections discuss the opportunities that are available for taxiway development. Parallel Taxiway to Runway 4-22 Currently, access to both ends of Runway 4-22 is sufficiently served by the existing taxiways. However, once Runway 9-27 is re-opened, the access from the west side of the airport to Runway 22 will become difficult. This access will require a portion of the abandoned Runway 13-31 alignment to be used if back taxiing is to be avoided. But, depending on how fast the airport develops, this route may not be available; as it would ultimately be broken up by the landside access necessary to access facilities on the north side of Runway 9-27. This problem would be solved if a full-length parallel taxiway were developed on the north side of Runway 9-27, as discussed in the following section. 2002 6 -15 I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SEBASTIAN ~ ~~~ HOMI Of PnICAN ISLAND I I For Runway 4-22, a full-length parallel taxiway will not be crucial until the South Infield area is developed. At that time, the existing north-south taxiway will be severed in order to provide landside access into the South Infield area. Until then, access to Runway 4 can be achieved through the use of the north-south taxiway. For access to Runway 22, either the abandoned Runway 13-31 alignment can be utilized or a future parallel on the north side of Runway 9-27 can be used for access to the existing partial parallel to Runway 22. I I Parallel Taxiway to Runway 9-27 I Once Runway 9-27 is re-opened, the most important taxiway development will be the construction of a full-length parallel to this runway. As stated previously, although Runway 9-27 is a Design Group I runway, the full-length parallel taxiway will need to be constructed to accommodate Design Group II aircraft. Therefore, it should be constructed to a width of 35 feet and at a centerline separation of 240 feet. I As described in the discussion related to the parallel taxiway to Runway 4-22, the need for a full-length parallel to Runway 9-27 will greatly depend on how fast the airfield is developed. In the meantime, although not the most direct route, aircraft will be able to utilize the Runway 13-31 pavement to gain access to the Runway 22 and 27 ends. Nonetheless, a full-length parallel taxiway to Runway 9-27 should be constructed as soon as it is feasibly possible. I I While it is possible to provide airfield access no matter which side of Runway 9-27 the parallel taxiway is on, the recommendation is to construct it on the north side. By building this taxiway to the north, most aircraft only have to cross a runway when taxiing to the Runway 4 end. In addition, nearly all of the existing airfield development is located on the north side of Runway 9-27, and a majority of the future aviation related development would also occur to the north. Therefore, it would not make sense to construct the parallel taxiway on the south side of the runway. Ultimately a partial parallel may be required on the south side, but this would depend solely on the location and configuration of any facilities constructed to the southeast or in the South Infield area. I I I North-South Taxiway I I Of the active taxiways serving the airport, the north-south taxiway is the most utilized. Currently this taxiway runs along the old Runway 18-36 alignment, which like all of the other runways, was constructed to a width of ISO feet. Because most of the airport facilities have been constructed along the west side of this pavement, and subsequently park aircraft along both sides, this pavement acts more as a taxilane and ramp than that of a taxiway. There are times when the parking of aircraft along this taxiway are such that the required object free area is encroached, and other times when taxiing aircraft have to actually weave through parked aircraft. I I The only true alternative for this taxiway is to provide a 35-foot wide alignment that can maintain an adequate object free area. Because all of the existing hangars are located along the west side of the 150- foot pavement, the most parking and maneuvering space (into and out of hangars) would be realized if the easternmost 35 feet were utilized. While this would create the most space in front of the existing facilities, it would eliminate the single row of aircraft tiedowns. As such, the designation of this taxiway alignment would need to coincide with the construction of additional ramp space to replace the dislocated tiedowns. I I 2002 6 -16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SlB~T!AN ~..p~_.,. ~~ ttOMt Of PWCAN rstAND Once Runway 9-27 is open, the north side of this taxiway will no longer run between active runway ends. Therefore, when designing the additional tiedown space, the north half of the north-south taxiway is truly better described as a taxilane. Therefore, the Design Group II standards of 115 feet for a taxilane object free area were employed. The taxi lane designation however will end at the intersection of the north-south taxiway and the future north parallel to Runway 9-27. Conversely, the south half of the north-south taxiway will need to maintain the full 131-foot taxiway object free area, as it will still connect the approach ends of Runway 4 and 9. As with the north half, the south half should also be constructed on the east side of the 150-foot wide pavement. In addition to providing more space for future aviation related development off of Airport Drive West, it also maintains a uniform intersection with the approach end of Runway 9. GENERAL AVIATION ALTERNATIVES The analysis of general aviation alternatives focuses on future Fixed Base Operator (FBO) development. It is envisioned that this complex will serve many functions, which shall include a general aviation terminal, administration building, and hangar development. However, before options for future FBO development can be explored, the needs of the existing tenants must be considered first. Relocation of Existing Tenants As mentioned previously, the re-opening of Runway 9-27 will require two existing airport tenants to relocate. Likewise, the future development of the airfield will also have an effect on the operations that are conducted by Skydive Sebastian. The subsequent sections address some of the issues related to these tenants and the relocation of their operations. South Portion of Velocity Leasehold On the west side of the airport, a 10,000 square foot building occupied by Golden Horn Aviation and Velocity will need to be relocated, as well as the south portion (four acres) of the land leased by Velocity. Discussions between the City and this tenant have resulted in a mutually agreed upon site, located across the north-south taxiway. This site, depicted on Exhibit 6-4, reserves an equal area to that displaced, just east of the north portion of Velocity's leasehold. While an initial estimate has been made for the cost to relocate the 10,000 square foot building, details of the exact transaction will change as future conversations and negotiations between the airport and Velocity evolve. Although it is easy enough to reserve an equal amount of land and construct a similar facility, at some point a compromise will have to be made with respect to short and long-term access to the new site. JS Aviation Leasehold At the time of this writing, only preliminary discussions have been held between the City and the tenant (JS Aviation) regarding need to be relocated. JS Aviation has a leasehold of approximately two acres and their facilities include an aircraft parking ramp, an enclosed hangar building, a fuel farm, an automobile parking lot, and a shade hangar. Until input can be obtained from JS Aviation, no sites have been analyzed for this relocation. The facilities that will need to be relocated are depicted on Exhibit 6-4. 2002 6-17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SEB~T~ ~ ~~ HOME Of PWCAN ISlAND Skydive Sebastian Landing Zone Currently, Skydive Sebastian utilizes the North Infield area as a landing zone for its sky diving operations. At present, there is no lease between the City and Skydive Sebastian for the exclusive use of this area. As such, when the north side of the airport eventually develops, these operations will have to occur elsewhere on the airfield. Two alternative sites are depicted on Exhibit 6-4. According to information provided by Skydive Sebastian, the minimum of a 300-foot radius is required for landing skydivers. One 300-foot radius landing zone is depicted in the northwest corner of the airport property. This site, while close to the existing Sky dive Sebastian leasehold, should only be considered for a single-term lease. Ultimately, this area will become part of the industrial/commercial parcels developed by the City. A second landing area is depicted for Skydive Sebastian in the South Infield area. This area is similar to the space currently used. As such, a problem with this site is that, much like the existing landing area, jumpers must cross an active taxiway to return to Skydive Sebastian's facilities. Even worse, in the future, if these jumpers are not properly escorted, they may also cross an active runway (once Runway 9-27 is re-opened). While the South Infield area is immediately available, the site in the northeast corner will obviously rely on the closing of Runway 13-31. However, the existing landing zone in the North Infield area should not be developed (other than the relocation of Velocity) until after the closure of Runway 13-31. In the meantime, the City and Skydive Sebastian need to continue conversations to determine which option will be pursued. FBO Alternatives The following sections present an overview of three FBO development alternatives. Cost estimates for the various FBO alternatives have not been developed, as it is assumed that most of the FBO and/or conventional hangar development costs will be born by the developer of the facility and not by the City. Likewise, all three of the alternatives have the same number, type, and size of facilities in each layout, which are based on the findings of the facility requirements. Also, it was assumed that the costs associated with the administration building portion of the development would be the same for the City, no matter which location is selected. Therefore, the sites were evaluated using a matrix with a variety of selection criteria. Alternative A - North of Runway 9-27 Alternative A attempts to achieve the most centralized airfield location, with respect to the ultimate runway configuration. A site such as this will provide the most visibility and shortest taxi times to each runway end. This concept places the main FBO terminal in the middle of the development, serving to separate the two different functions ofthe layout. Alternative A is depicted on Exhibit 6-5. To the east of the FBO building is the operational side of the complex, while the west provides t-hangars and tiedown space for private aircraft storage. Essentially, this design enables the FBO facility to segregate the different needs of itinerant and local operations. Arrangement of the buildings are such that none of the required standards, including object free areas, building restriction lines, and the runway visibility zone, are violated. Layout of the apron provides adequate spacing so that a 25-foot apron edge taxilane will maintain the proper Design Group II centerline separation from the full-length parallel taxiways to both Runway 4-22 2002 6 -19 I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SlBAST~ ~-' ~ - ."-..,, - -~''''">__ "'i-- HOME Of PUlCAN ISlAND I I and Runway 9-27. While this configuration could temporarily tie into the existing partial parallel taxiway to Runway 4-22, it would require the reconfiguration of the fuel farm installation. Alternative B - South Infield Area I Applying the concept of providing a centralized airfield location on the southwest side of the runway intersection results in the FBO complex shown as Alternative B. However, because the runways form an acute angle, the facility cannot be placed as close to the runway intersection. In fact, the layout for Alternative B (shown on Exhibit 6-5) is primarily driven by the limitations of the building restriction lines off both runways. I I Because the proposed FBO clearspan hangar is assumed to be taller than the terminal building, it needs to be further away from the runway centerlines. This limits the ability of the layout to segregate local from itinerant needs. As with Alternative A, this option could place the FBO terminal in-between the clearspan hangar and t-hangar facilities, but this would place the t-hangars closest to the runway intersection and in effect, coffin corner the other FBO facilities towards the approach to Runway 4. I I Layout of the aircraft parking apron provides the capability to support aircraft operations. The set back from the parallel taxiway to Runway 4-22 is such that an apron edge taxilane could be used to provide flexibility in the ramp layout. However, because of the proximity of the taxilanes to and from the t- hangars, aircraft movements in, out, and around the area just in front of the clearspan hangar could be constrained. I I Alternative C - Southeast Side of Airport I The FBO complex depicted on Exhibit 6-5 for Alternative C is exactly the same as Alternative A, only on the other side of the runway intersection. Although the thought behind these two layouts are similar, there are still some significant differences that should be noted. I Of the three alternatives, this is the only one located on the east side of the airport. Because of the airport configuration, this option relies on landside access off of Airport Drive East. This means that all of the vehicular traffic using these facilities will use Main Street to get to U.S. I or County Road 512 (Fellsmere Road). However, such a facility is not expected to generate a lot of traffic, especially when compared to the daily traffic that is generated by the City's Municipal Golf Course. I I I With respect to airfield access, Alternative C is significantly different since it is not located on the sides of the runway that have the full-length parallel taxiways. Thus, connector taxiways must run from the FBO apron area, to and across both runways to provide complete airfield access. Beyond the additional costs, this requires all aircraft going into and out of this area to cross an active runway. I I I 2002 I 6-20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SEBASTIAN ~~ . -. ...~ ~~. ., --'"'-~-........ - HOME Of PUlCAN rslAND Evaluation of FBO Alternatives While only a single FBO alternative will be recommended to serve as the framework for future development, all or part of each layout could eventually be developed. Therefore, the concepts are evaluated within this section to reveal the positive and negative aspects of each in comparison against the others. Thus the alternatives were evaluated within the following categories: flexibility, phasing/construction, environmental effects, operational effectiveness, and safety considerations. Flexibility - pertains to the total growth potential of each alternative site and the process inherent to achieving that growth. The evaluation criteria associated with this category include the ability to respond to uncertain demand levels, the balance of support functions, and the ability to satisfy changing tenant demands. Phasing/Construction - pertains to designated land uses and associated impacts to on-airport operations and the level of difficulty involved in implementing the proposed land uses. The evaluation criteria associated with this category include the ability to phase construction, the impact on existing facilities, and the ability to incrementally expand site development. Environmental Effects - performs a general assessment to determine the degree proposed land uses would potentially impact various components of the surrounding environment. Operational Effectiveness - compares the overall efficiency levels and usage of existing or proposed infrastructure associated with the general aviation area. The evaluation criteria associated with this category includes the compatibility with the long-range airfield, roadway access to development area, the competitive environment, and assures the highest and best use. Safety Considerations - measures each component for compliance with FAA standards that have a direct effect on the daily operations and safety at the airport facility. Evaluation factors include the overall compatibility with the areas of aircraft operation, FAR Part 77 surfaces, airfield design standards, and airport security. Table 6-7 presents an evaluation matrix that addresses the aforementioned criteria. This matrix summarizes the analyses of the development concepts, also presented in the following paragraphs. Flexibility Ability to Respond to Uncertain Growth - The ability to respond to uncertain demand levels determines each concept's ability to accommodate demand in excess or lower than anticipated. Alternative A provides the best alternative to accommodate future demand due to the available space on this side of the runway intersection. Alternative Band C both suffer from being limited in the ability to expand. Of the two, Alternative C is constrained by the imaginary surfaces of the airfield and the proximity of the City golf course. Alternative B is also constrained by the airfield's imaginary surfaces, but could expand to the west. However, such an expansion would confine the FBO complex to one corner of the airport. Balance of Support Functions - This factor evaluates the siting of support functions such as fueling, airport maintenance, and like facilities. The ideal is to locate these facilities with access and to centrally orientate them to serve proposed aviation related development. Of the three concepts, Alternatives A and C were deemed to provide adequate locations for the siting of support facilities. Conversely, Alternative B was not as desirable, as maintenance, fueling, and other operations will appear to conflict. 2002 6-22 I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J S[BAST~ ~~ . _~'-. -r ". '-' -- ,__ --,- -., - HOME Of PU.ICAN ISlAND I I Ability to Satisfy Changing Tenant Demands - This factor evaluates the ability to accommodate changing needs of FBO operations and other private and corporate tenants. While not required during the 20-year planning period, Alternative A offers the most opportunity to develop additional land abutting the site. Thus, Alternative A possess greater ability to satisfy changing tenant demands when compared to Alternative B which can only expand into an isolated area and Alternative C which is simply limited for space. I I Phasing/Construction I Ability to Phase Construction - This factor examines the impact of construction on airport operations, potential relocations, and other airport related activity. Phasing of any development must be considered in light of operations taking place at the time of construction. Only Alternatives A and B will impact the airfield operations during construction. Both do so by interrupting taxiway access to a runway end. Alternative C poses no phasing or construction related impacts. This analysis assumes that Runway 13- 31 is closed, and Runway 9-27 is re-opened, before any of the alternatives are implemented. I I Impact to Existing Facilities - This factor evaluates the impact to existing airport facilities the new development may affect, including its operation or function, or require its relocation. To fully implement the layout associated with Alternative A, the partial parallel taxiway to Runway 4-22 will have to be considered. As stated previously, either Alternative A's layout will need to be modified, or the portion of the new parallel taxiway between the approach end of Runway 22 and Runway 9-27 will need to be constructed. In order to provide landside access to Alternative B, the existing north-south taxiway will be split between the approach ends of Runway 4 and 9. Again, assuming that Runway 13-3 I is closed, and Runway 9-27 re-opened, Alternative C does not pose any impact to the existing airfield facilities. I I I Ability to Incrementally Expand - This factor evaluates the ability for the site build-out to be conducted in phases and its impact on operations. There would be no additional impact if each of the three alternatives were to develop to their full potential. I Environmental Effects I Analyzing each of the three FBO alternatives, no differences regarding environmental effects were evident. Based on the information available, none of the three options will impact wetlands, endangered species, historic sites, compatible land uses, or any other environmental elements. I Operational Effectiveness I Compatibility with Long Range Airfield - This factor evaluates potential operational problems that may exist over the long-term development of the airfield. By assuring airfield components meet the needs of activity generators, the efficiency of the airport is maintained. Ultimately, only Alternative A would not have an impact on the long range airfield operation. As previously mentioned, Alternative B will discontinue the ability of aircraft from the northwest side of the airport to directly access the approach end of Runway 4. To a much lesser extent, aircraft taxiing to and from the site of Alternative C will always have to cross active runways. I I Roadway Access to Potential Development Areas - This factor addresses the ability of the eXIstmg roadway network to accommodate the proposed alternative. While all of the concepts require the I 2002 6-23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SlBAST~ ~~ __ ",.r- -.;,:: _ -~"v_" --~ HOME Of P'WC.AN ISLAND construction of new roadways for access, they do so to different extents. Alternative A will require the longest access road, Alternative C the second longest, and Alternative B the shortest of all three. Competitive Environment - This factor addresses the siting of the FBO terminal and operations, and the ability of the site to maintain equal competition between the operations. There is an inherent belief that transient traffic uses the first FBO facility that they identify when taxiing. As such, Alternative A provides the most competitive site, with Alternative C following next, and Alternative B as the least competitive. Safety Considerations Compatibility with areas of aircraft operation and Part FAR 77 Surfaces - This factor examines the ultimate impact to airfield compatibility, with a keen interest in preserving and enhancing safety and impacting navigable airspace. All three of the alternatives have been designed such that they are compatible with the standards of these criteria. Airport Security - This factor evaluates each concept's potential to preserve or enhance safety and security on the airfield. With their proposed layouts, all three concepts will maintain a high level of safety and security on the airfield. Recommended FBO Development Alternative The recommended FBO alternative for Sebastian Municipal is based on the qualitative assessment summarized in Table 6-7. The evaluation scores afford a measurable assessment of the three options with respect to the criteria described previously. Alternatives A and C were considered comparable in many of the categories; however, the differences between the flexibility and operational effectiveness made Alternative A more advantageous. Overall, Alternative B had too many deficiencies, especially those related to the interruption of the north-south taxiway, for it to be considered. Therefore, the recommended FBO development site is Alternative A. 2002 6-24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SEBAST!AN ~'~ .- ."~ -..;: ---. . ----,- _. '" .- ttOMI Of PWCAN IS1.ANO TABLE 6-7 FBO ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX Evaluation Factors Alternative Alternative Alternative A B C Flexibility Ability to Respond to Uncertain Demand Levels 4 2 I Balance of Support Functions 4 2 4 Ability to Satisfy Changing Tenant Demands 4 3 2 Subtotal 12 7 7 Phasing/Construction Ability to Phase Construction 2 2 4 Impact to Existing Facilities 2 2 4 Ability to Incrementally Expand 3 3 3 Subtotal 7 7 11 Environmental Effects Environmental 3 3 3 Subtotal 3 3 3 Operational Effectiveness Compatibility with Long Range Airfield 5 I 2 Roadway Access to Potential Development Areas 3 5 4 Competitive Environment 5 3 4 Subtotal 13 9 10 Safety Considerations Compatibility wi Operations and Part 77 Surfaces 3 3 3 Airport Security 4 4 4 Subtotal 7 7 7 Evaluation Score 42 33 38 Source: THE LPA GROUP INCORPORATED, 2001. Legend: 1 - Poor 2 - Fair 3 - Satisfactory 4 - Very Good 5 - Excellent NAVIGATIONAL AIDS ALTERNATIVES Analyses were conducted to determine the viability of establishing non-precision approaches to the ends of Runway 4-22 and Runway 9-27. Any non-precision approach for Sebastian Municipal would use Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology. The FAA guidelines and criteria for approaches using this equipment are contained in Order 8260.38A, "Civil Utilization of Global Positioning System." For this analysis, it was assumed that the actual cost (or better, time and effort) associated with establishing a non-precision GPS approach at Sebastian, was the same, no matter which runway end. Therefore, potential approaches were primarily evaluated based on their impact to the community and their potential with respect to obstructions. For Runway 4-22, a non-precision instrument approach would require a 34: I approach slope surface. Both ends of this runway would require tree trimming and/or removal to accommodate an unobstructed non-precision approach surface. In addition, the approach to Runway 4 would also require four of the power poles located along the right-of-way for Roseland Road to either be lowered or removed and the utility to be placed underground. 2002 6-25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SlBAST~ ~.r',.----. ~~ HOMI Of PWCAN I:S1.AND While this is not impossible, it does make the establishment of an approach to Runway 4 a bit more difficult and expensive. The obstructions to both ends of Runway 4-22 are addressed in the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) chapter and depicted on sheet four of the ALP set. Because Runway 9-27 has been designed for small airplanes (less than 12,500 pounds) with less than 10 passenger seats, it is considered a utility runway, as defined in FAR Part 77. This designation allows Runway 9- 27 to have a non-precision instrument approach with only a 20: I approach slope surface. Nonetheless, as with the primary runway, both ends of Runway 9-27 would require a number of trees to either be lowered or removed altogether. Additionally, for the approach to Runway 9, two ofthe power poles located along the right-of-way for Roseland Road will have to either be lowered or removed and the utility placed underground to provide an unobstructed 20: 1 approach slope surface. However, these poles will be mitigated as part of the re-opening of Runway 9-27. Obstructions to the ends of Runway 9-27 are addressed in the ALP chapter and depicted on sheet five of the ALP set. Sebastian Municipal's proximity to the Atlantic Ocean provides the most significant impact as to which runway end would provide the most desirable non-precision approach. The prevailing winds tend to come from an easterly orientation, favoring the approaches to Runway 4 and 9. Similarly, due to the location of the airfield, with respect to the Atlantic coastline, it is assumed that most aircraft would arrive from the north, west, or south. Thus, any approaches on this side of the airport would be more desirable (such as Runway 4 and Runway 9) as pilots prefer a more direct route into an airport. Approaches made in from the east side of the airport (to Runway 22 or 27) would most likely necessitate arrival procedures that would take any traffic from the north, west, or south out over the Indian River or possibly the ocean, before turning in-bound for the final approach. With respect to overflights, approaches to both Runway 4 and Runway 9 would provide the least amount of impact to the surrounding community. Similarly, an approach to Runway 22 would have little impact, but suffers from the drawbacks associated with routing traffic over communities when serving aircraft that approach the airport from the north, west, or south. Nonetheless, the first non-precision instrument approach should be established for Runway 4-22 since it is the primary runway, capable of handling the most demanding aircraft (ARC B-II) expected to use the airport. An approach to the crosswind runway should only be considered after at least one approach has been established to the primary runway. Thus it is recommended that the first non- precision instrument approach be established to Runway 4. Next, either an approach to Runway 22 or Runway 9 could be established, and finally, an approach to Runway 27 should be considered last. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AL TERNA TIVES The land at an airport that is not needed for the ultimate airfield facilities should be used for economic development opportunities. Those areas that are adjacent and/or have the ability to access the runway and taxiway system should be reserved for aviation related expansion, while the rest can be used for compatible non- aviation related facilities. Primarily, this section identifies and evaluates the opportunities that are possible given the previous alternative analyses. The development of realistic economic opportunities will require close coordination with the staff from the City of Sebastian to ensure that efforts by the City, as well as those suggested in this study, are coordinated. For discussion purposes, the airport was previously divided into four quadrants and the two infield areas. These areas were based on the Runway 4-22 and Runway 13-31 configuration. Despite the fact that Runway 13-31 will be closing, these six areas remain relatively the same, with the exception that the North Infield area would be part of the North Quadrant, once Runway 9-27 is re-opened. Other variations are addressed in the following sections concerning the viability of supporting future economic development options within these areas. 2002 6-26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J S[BAST~ ~.~~.-,.. ~~ HOMI OF PWCAN ISLAND North Quadrant Currently there is no landside access to the north side of the airport. Any future access should come off of Airport Drive West, to prevent any additional curb cuts on Roseland Road. Therefore, while this area provides the most land available for future development, both aviation and non-aviation related, it will require improvements for access and utilities. Nonetheless, given the other areas on the airport, the North Quadrant will be the area for most of the airport's future economic development. South Quadrant Previously this portion of the airport was unavailable for development, however, this will change when the South Quadrant's boundaries are defined as the area between the approach ends of Runway 4 and Runway 27. As depicted on Exhibit 6-1, ultimately this area will create an additional 17 acres of developable land. Due to the proximity of this land to the airfield, only aviation related facilities should be considered in the future for the South Quadrant. When this area is developed, landside access could utilize the taxiway pavement that currently connects the approach end of Runway 31 with the pavement of the Runway 9-27 alignment, as it will no longer be needed when Runway 13-3 I closes. This taxiway pavement would tie into Airport Drive East, which is also how utilities would be routed to serve this quadrant. East Quadrant Under the new runway configuration, this quadrant will decrease in size as it will now only cover the area between the approach ends of Runway 22 and 27. A future aviation or even non-aviation tenant could develop in this area, however due to its remote location and the costs for access and utilities, the area would better serve as a location for airfield related facilities, such as a maintenance building and/or electrical vault. West Quadrant Parcels on the west side of the airport provide the most immediate capability to accommodate future development opportunities. The ability to quickly provide access and utilities to the undeveloped parcels in this area make it the most desirable with respect to short-term development. While there are only a limited number of parcels remaining that would have access to the airs ide, a good amount of space exists for non-aviation related uses. Future development must ensure that the approach, transitional, and other surfaces related to Runway 9-27 must not be encroached. Any development that penetrates the required surfaces and/or design standards could have severe implications on the viability of this runway. South Infield Because it lies within the confines of the two runways and an important taxiway, the South Infield area should be reserved only for development when the other areas of the airport approach saturation. As mentioned in the FBO alternatives, land access into this area would sever the north-south taxiway and drastically increase taxi times for nearly all of the airfield users. Therefore, this area should remain undeveloped for as long as possible. 2002 6-27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Master Plan Update (]!'f(J SlBASY!AN ~-' -. .,-......." -, . -" ~_...... -- HOMt Of PWCAN ISLAND SUMMARY OF AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES The preceding sections have identified and analyzed a number of planning alternatives for future development at the Sebastian Municipal Airport. The alternatives presented focused on meeting future facility needs at the airport while maintaining operational efficiency and safety standards. The positive and negative aspects of each alternative were presented and discussed to provide an indication of differentials between various options. In summary, despite the additional costs, the option to re-open Runway 9-27 and subsequently close Runway 13- 31 was selected as the most advantageous. As a result, all of the preceding sections of this analysis were based on the new configuration of the airfield. With the new configuration of the airfield, the analysis related to the taxiway system was simplified. The resulting layout preserved the existing north-south taxiway and recommended a full-length parallel on the north side of Runway 9-27 and a full-length parallel on the west side of Runway 4-22. The analysis of the FBO alternatives indicates that Alternative A is the most effective at meeting the future needs of the airport while also providing the best operational environment. Both of the other FBO alternatives involved some type of compromise in effectively serving the airport's needs, and were not considered optimal for the overall airfield development. Future non-precision approaches could be accommodated on each of the four runway ends; however, it was determined that approaches to serve aircraft arriving from the west side (Runway 4 and Runway 9) should be the first approaches established. Finally, it was determined that future economic development, both aviation and non-aviation related, should occur on the west side of the airport and then to the north. Developable land on the south and east side of the airport should be reserved for more specialized uses, while the land in the South Infield area should not be developed until it is absolutely needed. After discussions with the Technical Review Committee, FDOT, FAA, Airport Management, and City staff, as well as any feedback from the public presentation, these selected alternatives will be consolidated. This task, which is addressed in the following chapter, may result in the revision of options or the combination of individual alternatives into a single alternative for implementation. Once combined, the consolidated alternatives will be utilized in the layout plans for the airport. 2002 6-28