Ord. 20640 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES All taxiways proposed for removal are shown in red on Figure 4-6. At the time of this writing, Taxiway A7 and A8 are already in the process of being removed. In addition to the main runway connectors, overall taxiway system deficiencies to and from the runways must be addressed to simplify, standardize, and optimize to entire airfield system. Figure 4-6 shows REDIM modeling results of where taxiway pavement surfaces can be eliminated and locations where replacement connectors are recommended to be added. Parallel Taxiways A and B should be preserved along with midfield Taxiway C. Taxiway M is proposed to be extended in the long-term to allow two-way traffic flows between the parallel runways. All taxiways are recommended to be designed to meet ADG III/TDG 5 design standards with the exception of Taxiway M, which can remain in its current design category (ADG III/TDG 3) through PAL 3. Under PAL 3 demand levels, Taxiway C is adequate to meet the most demanding commercial operations between the two runways, while Taxiway M serves ADG III/TDG 3 aircraft when necessary. It is critical, however, to preserve adjacent land south of Taxiway M to allow potential future expansions up to ADG III/TDG 5 design standards beyond the planning period. Additionally, Taxiway R provides direct runway-to-apron access via B3 and therefore is recommended for removal and replacement as necessary to the north. Taxiway B2 leads directly onto Runway 16L-34R from Taxiway C and is recommended for relocation directly to the north to avoid potential runway incursions. Although Taxiway B2 does not violate FAA design standards, eliminating direct access to Runway 16L-34R would meet the core principles of the FAA design standards and improve safety. The infield taxiway system, shown in yellow in Figure 4-6, is primarily the result of adaptive reuse of pavement from historic runway configurations. Some of the infield taxiways (Taxiway D and portions of Taxiway P) could be removed immediately to minimize unneeded pavement and improve pilot orientation, while other portions of the infield taxiways should be modified and incorporated into the ultimate taxiway configuration as funding becomes available or as required by the growth of midfield commercial facilities. New connections from the existing terminal apron to Taxiway A and Taxiway M are not discussed at this time since they are integral to how the terminal will be configured. Recommendations for reconfiguration of the infield taxiways will be specified in the preferred future development and implementation sections. These elements of the taxiway system are trailing elements driven by the preferred terminal development concept which will be defined in Section 4.6.4, Preferred Airfield Infield Development, of this chapter. For these reasons, in Figure 4-6. No matter where infield connections are made to Taxiway A or Taxiway M, best practices dictate the predominant north-south and east-west configuration be used and current FAA design guidance will define limitations on placement. It is important to note that the preceding REDIM analysis defines acceptable ranges for the placement of Runway 16R-34L and no apron-Taxiway A connection can be placed in a way which allows direct access to that newly defined runway connector. 4.5.1.4 Airfield Design Evaluation In the instance of the Eugene Airport airfield, multiple variations for airfield development have not been created as the driving design factors (predominant weather patterns, terrain, aircraft fleet mix, airfield capacity, FAA design standards, and REDIM modeling) leave little room for interpretation in design options. Instead, the optimal design as described throughout Section 4.5.1, Airfield Design, will be carried forward to the preferred development option and used to help constrain potential locations for EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 4-19