Ord. 20640 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The most significant challenge associated with Terminal Concept #1 is a restriction in its ability to allow future expansion potential in a flexible way. This is due to the alignment of the ultimate build out concept which extends a concourse northwest to near the TOFA line of the proposed Taxiway M. This proximity limits expansion potential from the concourse end and limits aircraft parking pushback abilities. Additionally, maintaining the alignment of the existing terminal building directly impacts future landside/roadway design requirements. Terminal Concept #2 faces challenges in efficiently serving target user groups and aligning with the ultimate airport land use pattern vision. This concept would require higher investments in people moving equipment in the terminal to provide a minimum of LOS C for the proposed ultimate build-out scenario. Concept #2 also makes relatively inefficient use of the available land area for commercial terminal operations by impeding on land conceptualized for use other than commercial airline service and creating large areas between taxilanes which could be better utilized under different configurations. The primary challenge associated with Terminal Concept #3 is its potential to impact public and tenant operations during construction. This is primarily due to the requirement to demolish portions of existing Concourse A in order to expand in a manner oriented with the airfield. These impacts can be mitigated but would likely be more costly to implement than other alternatives. The proposed location of the terminal would complicate its construction and the construction of related landside facilities while needing to operate out of the existing terminal facilities. The location of the future terminal could be moved further east to minimize these impacts. Landside/Roadway Alternatives The landside/roadway system consists of trailing planning elements which are highly driven by the orientation and design of the terminal building they serve. As documented in Chapter 3, Facility Requirements, growth at Eugene Airport has exceeded the ability of the existing landside facilities to meet passenger demand. Likewise, the Airport itself is growing beyond the ability of existing facilities to retain the most convenient characteristics of a small airport, the most important of which is a consistently highlevel of service for passengers. Those passenger conveniences, as they relate to landside facilities, include plentiful parking close to the terminal and low parking rates for all users. In addition to those, Eugene Airport offers its passengers a uniquely high ratio of landscaped greenspace-to-parking surfaces. Options for maintaining or reproportioning the greenspace-to-parking ratio will also be addressed in the alternatives process. The following sections will briefly reviewthe analysis of key issues for the passenger terminal building, propose a variety of alternative concepts to meet current/future needs, and assess each option against established evaluation criteria. The goal of these landside alternatives is to retain and/or improve the passenger level of service in a safe and efficient manner all while accommodating the increase in demand through PAL 3. EUGENE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 4-31