M A S T E R   P L A N

Section 4

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES

The alternatives analyses component of this Master Plan Update considers the facility requirements determined in the previous section, accepted airport standards, and the ultimate goals of the Airport, to produce long-range development alternatives. Once the long-range development program has been determined, short-range improvements can be readily implemented without jeopardizing the ultimate concept. The program will evaluate how to best expand and improve existing Airport facilities in terms of overall efficiency, while also accommodating the logical and efficient development of a future expanded Airport facility. The goal of this alternatives analysis is to optimize on-airport land use, maximize the capacity and economic viability of the existing facilities, and identify the facilities and practical stages of future development.

Based on the facility requirements presented in Section 3, the primary capital improvements that are analyzed in this Section include Runway 9/27 and the commercial terminal facility. As discussed in the Preface, detailed evaluations of these two airport components were completed in 1999 as part of supplemental studies to the Master Plan Update. These analyses have been reviewed and incorporated as appropriate in this Section. The original reports, "Runway 9/27 Extension Feasibility" and "Commercial Terminal Analysis", are included in their entirety as Appendices III and V, respectively.

The other airport components evaluated in Section 3, including general aviation, rotorcraft, air cargo, and ARFF, have not been analyzed in this Section because their specific technical, spatial, or functional requirements result in obvious locations of such.

4.1 RUNWAY 9/27

Relative to evaluation of various runway alternatives, it should be noted that because student pilots utilizing Runway 2/20 do not require a longer crosswind runway and based on community input, it is not considered economically or politically feasible to extend Runway 2/20. Therefore, no extensions of Runway 2/20 is evaluated as part of this Master Plan Update or supplemental analyses.

As discussed in Section 3, enhanced safety at the Airport is the fundamental basis for studying the feasibility of extending Runway 9/27. The initial priority is to enhance the operational capabilities of the airfield through systematic construction of improvements to active pavements and navigational aids. By doing so, payload and destination restrictions may be greatly reduced or eliminated, while also enhancing the level of safety at the Airport. The final purposes for considering the extension of Runway 9/27, focus on enhancing community development potential and meeting the travel needs associated with University and corporate travel.

As noted in a Appendix II, "Runway 9/27 Length Analysis", Fortune 500 companies place a great deal of importance on the aviation assets offered by a community. The function of an expanded airfield must work efficiently and free from restrictions. Ensuring financial feasibility will facilitate the identification of a positive benefit/cost ratio. Undoubtedly, design constraints, earthwork requirements, land acquisition, and construction phasing will need to be identified. It is also imperative that aircraft movements, line-of-sight issues, navigational aids, close-in structures, and off-airport obstructions be identified and evaluated. From an environmental perspective, noise, land use compatibility, water quality, and construction impacts must be assessed and mitigated, if necessary. These items have been evaluated and are addressed in detail in Appendix III.

As discussed in Section 3, it is recommended that a minimum takeoff runway length of approximately 6,500 feet for Runway 9/27 be developed at the Athens-Ben Epps Airport. Optimally, a takeoff runway length of 7,000 feet should be preserved as a part of this recommendation. Furthermore, Runway 9/27 should be widened to 150 feet to serve airplanes within Aircraft Design Group III (with maximum takeoff weights of 150,000 pounds) and IV.

An analysis of the existing airfield resulted in the identification of three potential alternatives that satisfy the runway length requirements evaluated in Appendix II and discussed in Section 3. Recognizing that safety receives the highest priority, these alternatives include:

4.1.1 Preferred Runway Alternative

Table 4-1 presents a cursory overview of the advantages and disadvantages found to exist among the various alternatives considered for development. Based on an evaluation of the feasibility factors presented in Table 4-1, the need to expeditiously develop an airfield to sufficiently meet user needs, capital improvement costs, and potential public concerns, Alternative 2 is recommended as the Preferred Alternative. As summarized in Table 4-1,

FIGURE 4-1
ALTERNATIVE 1


Click picture for larger version



FIGURE 4-2
ALTERNATIVE 2


Click picture for larger version



FIGURE 4-3
ALTERNATIVE 3


Click picture for larger version



TABLE 4-1
AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY

(To be added)


Alternative 2 would result in balanced purchases of farmland and portions of IMC
AgriBusiness, no impacts to incompatible land uses, balanced distribution of overflights, the least wetland impacts, and mid-range construction costs relative to the other two alternatives. Thus, it is recommended that Runway 9/27 be extended 500 feet to the east and west to provide 6,500 feet. The final 500 feet, for a total of 7,000 feet, is recommended to occur at the Runway 9 end.

Alternative 2 was approved by the Airport Authority on November 21, 2000, and approved by the Mayor and Commission on April 3, 2001.

4.2 COMMERCIAL TERMINAL FACILITY

As discussed in the Preface, the relocation of the existing commercial passenger terminal to alternative sites adjacent to the Airport’s runways was evaluated as a supplement to this Master Plan Update. This terminal alternative analysis examined two general sites previously identified in the 1995 Master Plan Update together with a favored alternative identified during the supplemental study. As depicted in Figure 4-4, these alternate sites include: 1) the "Remote Site", east of Runway 2/20; 2) the "Midfield Site", south and slightly west of the midpoint for Runway 9/27; and, 3) the "Parking Lot Site", positioned in the main parking lot northwest and adjacent to the existing commercial terminal.

During the initial phases of the supplemental study of the commercial passenger terminal, preferred concepts that maximized the utilization of each site, considering operational, design and development cost criteria and site conditions, were identified (refer to Appendices C and D of Appendix V). The preferred concept for each site was then evaluated, as was additional qualitative criteria. Additional qualitative criteria address the long-term impacts of each site beyond the 20-year planning period. These preferred concepts for each of the three alternative sites are discussed in the following subsections.

Figure 4-4

Commercial Terminal Alternative Site Locations


Click picture for larger version

 

4.2.1 Remote Site

The preferred concept works within the Airport property limits; however, the site access is via County property at the recreational complex (Satterfield Park). The apron location is illustrated in Figure 4-5. Apron access is provided by an extension of Taxiway B2. Three alternate ground access routes (A, B, and C) were developed for this concept.

Significant strengths of the Remote Site include:

Significant weaknesses of the Remote Site include:

 

4.2.2 Midfield Site

The preferred concept consolidates all of the future passenger terminal development and simplifies property acquisition. The commercial frontage (except for a 150-foot right-of-way) could be left as an out-parcel, or the property could be retained for other Airport/County uses. The site access would be provided by an access road perpendicular to the existing Shady Brook Drive entrance point. The apron location and access are depicted in Figure 4-6.

Figure 4-5
Remote Site


Click picture for larger version

 

Significant strengths of the Midfield Site include:

Significant weaknesses of the Midfield Site include:


4.2.3 Parking Lot Site

This development site was identified as a result of the commercial terminal building supplemental analyses. The preferred concept includes development of a new terminal building on the existing site in the current parking lot area, as depicted in Figure 4-7.

Figure 4-6
Midfield Site


Click picture for larger version

Figure 4-7
Parking Lot Site


Click picture for larger version

Significant strengths of the Parking Lot Site include:

Significant weaknesses of the Parking Lot Site include:

 

4.2.4 Preferred Commercial Terminal Alternative

Based on long-term advantages, the "Midfield Site" is the recommended site for future development of a commercial terminal at Athens-Ben Epps Airport. Operationally, very few advantages exist between the "Midfield Site" and the "Parking Lot Site." A midfield site will afford the County the intangible merits of convenient landside access, a desirable new front door appeal for arriving passengers, as well as long-range expandability for commercial aviation and general aviation to the south and north of Runway 9/27, respectively.

Several construction initiatives (i.e., fuel farm, partial parallel taxiway, etc.) would further strengthen the operational aspects of the "Midfield Site," but with added cost. Two long-term advantages of the "Midfield Site," which are non-existent at the "Parking Lot Site," would be the availability of leaseable commercial properties along Lexington Road and the potential for revenue producing vehicle parking at the commercial terminal. Airport revenues realized from the automobile parking facilities may range from $75,000 to 200,000 annually, depending on lot utilization and fee structure. This aspect alone may outweigh the difference in construction cost between the two sites.

The "Midfield Site" was approved by the Airport Authority on December 15, 1999, and approved by the Mayor and Commission as a part of Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) 2000 on May 16, 2000.




Click here for the Airport Master Plan Table of Contents