HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft EUG Master Plan Update, February 2010
Eugene Airport
Master Plan Update
Prepared for
City of Eugene, Oregon
Prepared by
in association with:
3DiWest
Ford and Associates
Evans Elder & Brown
Satre Associates
February 2010
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
Prepared for
City of Eugene, Oregon
Prepared by
In association with:
3DiWest
Ford and Associates
Evans Elder & Brown
Satre Associates
February 2010
The preparation of this document was financed in part through a planning grant from the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) as provided under Section 505 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act
as amended. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the official views of the FAA.
Acceptance of this report by the FAA does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the
United States to participate in any development depicted herein, nor does it indicate that the proposed
development is environmentally acceptable in accordance with applicable public laws.
Table of Contents
F
OREWARD
1BI
C
HAPTER ACKGROUND AND NVENTORY
1. I .............................................................................................................................1–1
NTRODUCTION
1.1 History...............................................................................................................................1–1
1.2 Location............................................................................................................................1–2
1.3 Climate..............................................................................................................................1–2
1.4 AirportRole.......................................................................................................................1–4
1.5 Airport Management and Financial Information...............................................................1–5
2. FI.................................................................................................................1–6
ACILITIES NVENTORY
2.1 Land..................................................................................................................................1–6
2.2 Airport Facilities................................................................................................................1–6
3. AATC.........................................................................................1–17
IRSPACE AND IRRAFFIC ONTROL
3.1 Enroute Airspace............................................................................................................1–17
3.2 Transitional Airspace......................................................................................................1–17
3.3 Terminal Airspace Facilities............................................................................................1–17
3.4 Instrument Procedures...................................................................................................1–17
4. ST...........................................................................................................1–19
OCIOECONOMIC RENDS
4.1 Population.......................................................................................................................1–19
4.2 Employment....................................................................................................................1–19
4.3 Income…........................................................................................................................1–20
4.4 Land Use and Urban Growth...........................................................................................1–20
4.5 Urban Growth..................................................................................................................1–26
5. AA.....................................................................................................................1–27
VIATIONCTIVITY
5.1 Enplanements.................................................................................................................1–27
5.2 Operations......................................................................................................................1–27
5.3 Based Aircraft.................................................................................................................1–29
5.4 Air Cargo.........................................................................................................................1–30
2 FAD
C
HAPTER ORECASTS OF VIATION EMAND
.............................................................................................................................2–1
1. I
NTRODUCTION
2. PE.......................................................................................................2–2
ASSENGER NPLANEMENTS
2.1 Enplanement History and Industry Trends.......................................................................2–2
2.2 Enplanement Forecast – FAA Terminal Area Forecast....................................................2–3
2.3 Enplanement Forecast – Market Share Methodology......................................................2–3
2.4 Enplanement Forecast – Socioeconomic Methodology...................................................2–4
2.5 Enplanement Forecast – Method Comparison and Preference.......................................2–5
2.6 Contingency Planning Scenario.......................................................................................2–7
3. AO................................................................................................................2–8
IRCRAFT PERATIONS
3.1 Aircraft Operations History...............................................................................................2–8
3.2 Aircraft Operations Forecast – FAA Terminal Area Forecast...........................................2–9
3.3 Aircraft Operations Forecast – Alternative Methodology: Aircraft Fleet...........................2–9
i
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.4 Operations Forecast – Method Comparison and Preference.........................................2–11
4. BA.......................................................................................................................2–13
ASEDIRCRAFT
4.1 Based Aircraft History.....................................................................................................2–14
4.2 Based Aircraft Forecast – FAA Terminal Area Forecast................................................2–14
4.3 Based Aircraft Forecast – Socioeconomic Methodology................................................2–15
4.4 Based Aircraft Forecast – Method Comparison and Preference....................................2–16
4.5 Critical Aircraft................................................................................................................2–17
5. AC...............................................................................................................................2–18
IRARGO
5.1 Air Cargo History............................................................................................................2–18
5.2 Air Cargo Forecast – Boeing Trends..............................................................................2–18
5.3 Air Cargo Forecast – Socioeconomic Methodology.......................................................2–19
5.4 Air Cargo Forecast – Method Comparison and Preference...........................................2–20
6. PADC...............................................................................2–21
EAKVIATION EMANDHARACTERISTICS
7. PS..............................................................................................................2–23
ROJECTION UMMARY
C3 D/CAD
HAPTER EMANDAPACITY NALYSIS AND ETERMINATION OF
FR
ACILITY EQUIREMENTS
D/CA........................................................................................3–1
1. A
IRFIELD EMANDAPACITY NALYSIS
2. AFR...............................................................................................3–2
IRFIELD ACILITY EQUIREMENTS
2.1 Airfield Layout...................................................................................................................3–2
2.2 Design Standards.............................................................................................................3–2
2.3 Runway Length.................................................................................................................3–3
2.4 Runway Width...................................................................................................................3–5
2.5 Runway Pavement Strength.............................................................................................3–5
2.6 Taxiway System................................................................................................................3–5
2.7 Design Surfaces...............................................................................................................3–5
2.8 FAR Part 77 Surfaces.......................................................................................................3–6
2.9 Navigational Aids (NAVAIDS)...........................................................................................3–6
3. PTFR..........................................................................3–9
ASSENGER ERMINALACILITY EQUIREMENTS
3.1 Long-Term Terminal Building Expansion.........................................................................3–9
3.2 Near-Term Terminal Building Improvements...................................................................3–9
3.3 Baggage Security Screening Improvements....................................................................3–9
4. ACFR.........................................................................................3–10
IRARGO ACILITY EQUIREMENTS
5. GAFR.............................................................................3–11
ENERALVIATION ACILITY EQUIREMENTS
5.1 Based Aircraft Storage....................................................................................................3–11
5.2 Transient Aircraft Storage...............................................................................................3–12
5.3 General Aviation Automobile Parking.............................................................................3–13
6. FBOTFR...............................................................................3–14
AND ENANTACILITY EQUIREMENTS
6.1 Flightcraft Services.........................................................................................................3–14
6.2 Friendly Air Service.........................................................................................................3–15
6.3 Heli-Trade.......................................................................................................................3–15
6.4 Lawrence Air Service......................................................................................................3–15
6.5 Lane Aviation Academy..................................................................................................3–15
6.6 Oregon Air and Space Museum.....................................................................................3–16
ii
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7. SFR............................................................................................3–16
UPPORTACILITY EQUIREMENTS
7.1 Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting.....................................................................................3–16
7.2 Fuel Storage...................................................................................................................3–17
7.3 Airport Maintenance and Snow Removal Equipment Buildings.....................................3–17
7.4 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA Facilities)............................................................3–18
7.5 Aircraft Deicing...............................................................................................................3–19
8. STAPR...............................................3–19
URFACE RANSPORTATION AND UTO ARKING EQUIREMENTS
8.1 Airport Circulation...........................................................................................................3–19
8.2 Terminal Curbfront..........................................................................................................3–19
8.3 Auto Parking...................................................................................................................3–20
8.4 Airport Access.................................................................................................................3–23
9. U...................................................................................................................................3–23
TILITIES
C4 APC
HAPTER LTERNATIVE LAN ONCEPTS
1. EC.................................................................................................................4–1
VALUATION RITERIA
2. AF.....................................................................................................................4–2
IRFIELDACILITIES
2.1 Runways.............................................................................................................................4–2
2.2 Taxiways............................................................................................................................4–9
3. TA.......................................................................................................................4–11
ERMINALREAS
3.1 Main Passenger Terminal Area........................................................................................4–11
3.2 Other Terminal Areas.......................................................................................................4–17
3.2.1 NorthRamp...............................................................................................................4–17
3.2.2 SouthRamp...............................................................................................................4–22
3.3.3 East General Aviation Ramp.....................................................................................4–26
3.3.4 Hollis Lane Aviation Area..........................................................................................4–28
4. SAF.....................................................................................................4–30
PECIALIRPORT ACILITIES
4.1 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Facility...........................................................4–30
4.2 Aircraft Deicing Facility.....................................................................................................4–31
5. APC...................................................................................4–36
UTOMOBILE ARKING AND IRCULATION
5.1 Automobile Parking and Circulation.................................................................................4–36
6. AP..................................................................................................................4–41
IRPORT ROPERTY
C5 FFA
HAPTER INANCIAL EASIBILITY NALYSIS
FS..................................................................................................5–2
1. A
IRPORT INANCIAL TRUCTURE
2. CIP.......................................................................................................5–4
APITALMPROVEMENT LAN
3. FP.....................................................................................................5–10
UNDING FOR THE ROGRAM
3.1 Federal AIP Grants.......................................................................................................5–11
3.2 Passenger Facility Charges..........................................................................................5–14
3.3 Airport Operating and Capital Reserves.......................................................................5–15
3.4 Customer Facility Charge.............................................................................................5–15
3.5 Other Funding...............................................................................................................5–15
3.6 Private Funding.............................................................................................................5–16
4. HPAR......................................................................5–16
ISTORICAL AND ROJECTED IRPORTEVENUES
4.1 Airline Landing Fees.....................................................................................................5–19
iii
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.2 Airline Common Use Fees............................................................................................5–19
4.3 Airline Lease and Joint Use Fees.................................................................................5–19
4.4 Airfield Area Revenue...................................................................................................5–20
4.5 Rental Concession Revenue........................................................................................5–20
4.6 Food and Beverage Service Revenue..........................................................................5–20
4.7 Miscellaneous Terminal Facility Revenue....................................................................5–21
4.8 Public Parking Facility Revenue...................................................................................5–21
4.9 Other Revenue..............................................................................................................5–21
4.10 Summary of Airport Revenue........................................................................................5–21
5. HPOE..................................................................5–22
ISTORICAL AND ROJECTED PERATING XPENSES
5.1 Salaries and Labor........................................................................................................5–22
5.2 Employee Benefits........................................................................................................5–22
5.3 Maintenance and Repairs.............................................................................................5–25
5.4 Utilities...........................................................................................................................5–25
5.5 Contractual Services.....................................................................................................5–25
5.6 Insurance......................................................................................................................5–25
5.7 Summary of Projected Total Airport Expense...............................................................5–25
6. DS...........................................................................................................................5–26
EBTERVICE
7. CFAOF.......................................................................5–27
ASHLOWNALYSIS AND VERALLEASIBILITY
8. SA..............................................................................................................5–32
ENSITIVITY NALYSES
8.1 Changes in PFC Program.............................................................................................5–32
8.2 Changes in Airport Activity............................................................................................5–32
8.3 Additional Revenue Generation....................................................................................5–35
C6 LUC
HAPTER AND SE OMPATIBILITY
,SFLURG..........................................6–1
1. L
OCALTATE AND EDERAL ANDSEEGULATIONS AND UIDANCE
1.1 Federal Regulations and Guidance................................................................................6–2
1.1.1 Grant Assurance........................................................................................................6–2
1.1.2 Design Standards.......................................................................................................6–2
1.1.3 FAR Part 77................................................................................................................6–2
1.1.4 Wildlife Attractants.....................................................................................................6–5
1.2 State of Oregon Regulations and Guidance...................................................................6–5
1.3 Lane County Regulations................................................................................................6–6
1.3.1 Airport Operations Zone (Lane Code 16.247)............................................................6–6
1.3.2 Commercial Airport Safety Combining Zone (Lane Code 16.245)............................6–7
1.4 Metro Plan Guidance......................................................................................................6–7
1.5 Recommendations..........................................................................................................6–9
1.5.1 Existing RPZs.............................................................................................................6–9
1.5.2 FutureRPZs...............................................................................................................6–9
1.5.3 FAR Part 77 Surfaces................................................................................................6–9
2. AN........................................................................................................................6–10
IRCRAFT OISE
2.1 FAA Aircraft Noise Guidance........................................................................................6–10
2.2 Aircraft Noise Analysis..................................................................................................6–10
2.2.1 Methodology.............................................................................................................6–10
iv
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.2.2 Analysis....................................................................................................................6–11
2.3 Recommendations........................................................................................................6–15
3. LA.....................................................................................................................6–17
ANDCQUISITION
4. SR.............................................................................................6–17
UMMARY OF ECOMMENDATIONS
7 ALP
C
HAPTER IRPORT AYOUT LAN
LP................................................................................................................7–1
1. A
IRPORT AYOUT LAN
v
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Exhibits, Tables, and Graphs
Exhibits
1–1 Location Map ........................................................................................................1–3
1–2 Existing Airport Facilities 2006...........................................................................ff 1–7
1–3 Pavement Condition Map.................................................................................ff 1–11
1–4 Aeronautical Sectional Chart............................................................................ff 1–18
1–5 Zoning – City – Base........................................................................................ff 1–22
1–6 Zoning – City – Overlay....................................................................................ff 1–23
1–7 Zoning – County – Base...................................................................................ff 1–24
1–8 Zoning – County – Surfaces.............................................................................ff 1–25
4–1 Runways & Taxiways............................................................................................4–3
4–2 Runway 16L/34R Extension Alternative1.............................................................4–5
4–3 Runway 16L34R Extension Alternative2..............................................................4–7
4–4 Passenger Terminal Building Alternative 1.........................................................4–12
4–5 Passenger Terminal Building Alternative 2.........................................................4–13
4–6 North Ramp Development Alternative1..............................................................4–18
4–7 North Ramp Development Alternative2..............................................................4–19
4–8 South Ramp Improvements................................................................................4–23
4–9 East General Aviation Ramp Improvements.......................................................4–27
4–10 Hollis Lane Aviation Area Improvements............................................................4–29
4–11 Aircraft Rescue & Fire Fighting (ARFF) Facility Alternatives..............................4–32
4–12 Deicing Facility Alternative 1...............................................................................4–33
4–13 Deicing Facility Alternative 2...............................................................................4–34
4–14 Automobile Parking Improvements.....................................................................4–37
5–1 Capital ImprovementPlan.....................................................................................5–5
5–2 Revenue Generation Property............................................................................5–36
6–1 FAR Part 77.25 Surfaces - Plan View...................................................................6–4
6–2 FAR Part 77 Surfaces - Isometric View of Section A of Exhibit 6-1......................6–4
6–3 CAS-RCP..............................................................................................................6–7
se Contours...........................................................................6–12
6–4 Extent of 2006 Noi
6–5 Extent of 2026 Noise Contours...........................................................................6–13
6–6 Intersection of UGBS with the CAS-RCP............................................................6–16
Tables
1–1 EUG Top 10 Domestic O&D Markets....................................................................1–4
1–2 EUG Scheduled Seats and O&D Passengers 2000-2005....................................1–5
1–3 Wind Coverage – All Hours...................................................................................1–8
1–4 Taxiways...............................................................................................................1–9
1–5 Airport Environs...................................................................................................1–15
1–6 Major Features and Facilities Summary..............................................................1–16
1–7 Historic and Projected Population.......................................................................1–19
1–8 Historic and Projected Employment....................................................................1–19
vi
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1–9 Employment by Sector........................................................................................1–20
1–10 Historic and Projected Income Per Capita..........................................................1–20
2–1 Enplanement History.............................................................................................2–2
2–2 Enplanement Forecast – FAA TAF.......................................................................2–3
2–3 Enplanement Forecast – Market Share Methodology...........................................2–4
2–4 Enplanement Forecast – Socioeconomic..............................................................2–5
2–5 Enplanement Forecast – Comparison...................................................................2–6
2–6 Historical Aircraft Operations................................................................................2–8
2–7 Aircraft Operations Forecast – FAA TAF..............................................................2–9
2–8 Operations Forecast – Fleet Size Assumptions..................................................2–10
2–9 Operations Forecast – Alternative Methodology: Aircraft Fleet..........................2–11
2–10 Comparison of Operations Forecasts.................................................................2–12
2–11 Operations Forecast – Preferred.........................................................................2–12
2–12 Based Aircraft History..........................................................................................2–14
2–13 Based Aircraft Forecast – FAA TAF....................................................................2–14
2–14 Based Aircraft Forecast – Socioeconomic Methodology....................................2–15
2–15 Based Aircraft Forecast – Comparison...............................................................2–16
2–16 Air Cargo History.................................................................................................2–18
2–17 Air Cargo Forecast – Boeing Trends...................................................................2–19
2–18 Air Cargo Forecast – Socioeconomic..................................................................2–20
2–19 Air Cargo Forecast – Comparison.......................................................................2–20
2–20 Peak Aviation Demand Characteristics...............................................................2–22
2–21 Summary of Aviation Demand Forecasts............................................................2–23
3–1 Runway Length Data.............................................................................................3–4
3–2 Existing Aircraft Storage (2006)..........................................................................3–11
3–3 Aircraft Storage Requirements............................................................................3–11
3–4 Future Transient General Aviation Aircraft Storage Requirements....................3–12
3–5 Public Automobile Parking Requirements...........................................................3–21
3–6 Rental Car Parking Requirements......................................................................3–22
5–1 Capital Improvement Plan.......................................................................5–6 thru 5–9
5–2 Projected Airport Entitlement Funds and Passenger Facility Charge Revenue.5–12
5–3 Capital Improvement Plan Funding Analysis......................................................5–13
5–4 Historical Airport Revenue..................................................................................5–17
5–5 Projected Airport Revenues................................................................................5–18
5–6 Historical Airport Operating Expenses................................................................5–23
5–7 Projected Airport Expenses.................................................................................5–24
5–8 Schedule of Future Debt Service........................................................................5–28
5–9 Projected Airport Cash Flow from Operating Activities.......................................5–29
5–10 Projected Airport Cash Flow – Capital Improvement Plan..................................5–30
5–11 Projected Passenger Facility Charge Cash Flow Analysis – $7.00 PFC............5–33
5–12 Projected Airport Cash Flow – Capital Improvement Program Sensitivity
Analysis...............................................................................................................5–34
vii
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
л®³·¬¬»¼ Þ«·´¼·²¹ ¿²¼ Ë» ·² ¿² ß·®°±®¬ Ñ°»®¿¬·±² Ü·¬®·½¬òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòò
6–1 6–6
6–2 Parcels within Eugene Airport Noise Contours...................................................6–14
6–3 Breakdown of Affected Housing Parcels.............................................................6–14
Graphs
1–1 Historical Passenger Enplanements 1976-2006.................................................1–28
1–2 Historical Aircraft Operations 1976-2006............................................................1–28
1–3 Historical Based Aircraft 1980-2006....................................................................1–29
1–4 Historical Air Cargo 1997-2006...........................................................................1–30
2–1 Enplanement Forecast – Comparison...................................................................2–7
2–2 Operations Forecast – Preferred.........................................................................2–13
2–3 Based Aircraft Forecast – Comparison...............................................................2–17
2–4 Air Cargo Forecast – Comparison.......................................................................2–21
Appendices
A Glossary of Terms
B Supplemental Financial Analysis
viii
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
Foreword
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) developed the airport master planning process to assist the
nation’s airports in developing expansion plans to meet future aviation demand. The Master Plan
Update for Eugene Airport (Eugene, Oregon) serves as a development guide for the Airport’s short-
term (1 to 5 years), intermediate-term (5 to 10 years) needs and also addresses the needs of the
Airport through the long term (10 to 20 years). The Master Plan Update uses a base year of 2006 for
data and analytical purposes, with a planning horizon extending through to the year 2026. The short-,
intermediate-, and long-range time frames referred to in this Master Plan Update provide a framework
to ensure that Eugene Airport’s needs are identified and can be met in the future.
This Master Plan Update follows the processes set forth in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Advisory Circular 150-5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, which provides a flexible framework to
accomplish goals to improve aviation.
Plan Goals and Objectives
The previous two master planning efforts (in 1990 and 2000) placed heavy emphasis on realignment
of the overall airfield for long-term capacity improvements, including airfield and landside capacity. The
1990 Master Plan developed the initial concept for re-configuring the airfield into a parallel runway
design, while the 2000 Master Plan Update focused heavily on the details of phasing and
implementing that realignment. Also significant to the airfield realignment effort was the development
of a new area to benefit general aviation.
Overall, the 2006 Master Plan Update heavily focuses on refinement of the landside components of
the Airport. It invests in research and analysis of ways to make the airport more self-reliant in the
long-term, through the enhancement of revenues and analysis of potential future financial scenarios
(this makes the plan a more strategic one). These goals are accomplished by providing
recommendations that are feasible to implement and by providing for ample public participation. The
following are areas of emphasis in this Master Plan Update:
Airport functional areas:
Planning for improvement of passenger baggage security screening
Recommend improvements to east general aviation area (hangars, GA terminal/FBO facilities,
Oregon Air & Space Museum)
Aircraft rescue and firefighting facility (location and functional issues)
Identify rotorcraft movement and parking areas
Develop redevelopment idea for old airport traffic control tower and surrounding area
Evaluation of enhanced access to FAA air traffic control tower
Business Plan:
Develop capital improvement program
Research opportunities for revenue enhancement, including compatible airport property
development
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FOREWORD
Guide local discussions on airport governance options
Prepare financial feasibility under alternate financial scenarios
Land Use Planning:
Research additional airport land needed to protect approach and lateral areas
Recommend zoning or land use designation changes to protect airport from encroachment of
incompatible development
Develop new noise exposure contours
Review of existing wetland data, and planning related to potential impacts
Project coordination/participation:
Establish planning advisory committee
Hold public participation workshops
Airport Layout Plan:
Aggregate the City’s existing utility information and develop future utility improvement plan
Update ALP with recommended capital improvement plan
Provide new aerial photography
Plan Scope and Documentation
While this Airport Master Plan Update is tailored to meet Eugene Airport’s specific needs, it also
adheres to guidelines established by the FAA. Important FAA master planning objectives incorporated
within this Airport Master Plan Update include:
Provide an effective graphic representation of the airport’s existing and recommended ultimate
development and anticipated functional areas.
Assess the feasibility of the recommended development action through a prioritized and
phased schedule of recommended improvements.
Provide concise and descriptive documentation that can be clearly understood by the
community and agencies charged with approving, promoting, funding, and implementing the
Airport improvement program. To that end, draft master plan documentation will be developed
for review by the Master Plan Update Advisory Committee. Input from the Advisory
Committee will be incorporated into the final plan documents.
Relationship to Other Plans
In meeting the Plan goals, objectives and scope outlined above, this Eugene Airport Master Plan
Update will ultimately replace the 2000 Eugene Airport Master Plan Update which replaced the 1990
Eugene Airport Master Plan, and any earlier aviation plans, such as the Mahlon Sweet Field Master
Plan.
This Eugene Airport Master Plan Update will be reviewed as a refinement to the 2004 Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) that is functionally specific to the provision of
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FOREWORD
commercial aviation, general aviation, and airport-related commercial and industrial services
associated with the Eugene Airport. As a refinement plan, the Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
should be consistent with the Metro Plan’s policies and land use designations, and compatible with
other functional refinements to the Metro Plan, such as the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan).
Existing Plans
A review of existing documents relating to the airport and surrounding area will be made including:
existing airport layout plan and airspace plan, state aviation system plan, community plans and recent
air service research.
Master Plan Update Advisory Committee
The Advisory Committee includes the following members/representations:
Steve Senderling – Chair, Airport Advisory Committee
Paul Redhead – Vice Chair, Airport Advisory Committee
Claire Syrett – Member, Airport Advisory Committee
Mike Coontz – Previous Airport Operations Manager
Jackie Robertson – Commercial Airline Pilot
Phillip Farrington – Peace Health
Ruthann Couch – Air Traffic Manager, FAA (retired)
Suzanne Lee-Pang – Community Planner, FAA
Dr. Harvey Birdseye – Director, Lane Community College, Aviation Academy
Andy Vobora – Lane Transit District
Will Mueller – Lane Transit District
Steve Hopkins – Planner, Lane County Land Management Department
Gabe Flock – City of Eugene Planning and Development Department
Randy Hledik – Eugene Planning Commission
Steve Dignam – Lane County Planning Commission
Linda Ackerman – Member, Airport Advisory Committee
Ellie Dumdi – Former Lane County Commissioner, Junction City Resident
Denny Guehler – Member, Active Bethel Citizens
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
1
1
ݸ¿°¬»®
Background and Inventory
This chapter provides background information
on the Eugene Airport (EUG), and the context in
which it functions. This information is presented
in the following sections.
Introduction
Facilities Inventory
Airspace and Air Traffic Control
Socioeconomic Trends
Aviation Activity
This information provides base data to be used in subsequent analyses. This chapter will be
supplemented by additional data gathered during the course of the study.
1. Introduction
1.1 History
Aviation has a strong history in the Eugene area. The Eugene Air Park, the City’s first municipal
airport, was established in 1919. This airport was located on Chambers Street and was the first
municipally-owned airport on the West Coast. As activity began to increase at the Eugene Air Park,
the need for a new, more modern airport was championed by a local businessman, Mr. Mahlon
Sweet. Mahlon Sweet Field was dedicated on May 1, 1943, after Mr. Sweet convinced city officials
that improved airport facilities were necessary to support the community’s aviation needs. In 1943,
commercial service at Mahlon Sweet Field was first initiated by United Airlines using DC-3 aircraft.
The Eugene Air Park was closed thirteen years later in 1956, and the area’s general aviation activity
was transferred to Mahlon Sweet Field. Both commercial service and general aviation activity have
since been supported by Eugene Airport at Mahlon Sweet Field, and EUG has become an invaluable
asset to the Eugene/Springfield area.
In 1964, a new terminal building was built at EUG, and the airfield was upgraded to accommodate jet
aircraft. In response to rapidly increasing activity levels that occurred in the early 1980's, an airport
improvement program was initiated, including construction of an expanded modern terminal (known
as the Mahlon Sweet Terminal), a new airport traffic control tower, the construction of a new
automobile parking facility, and extensive landscaping of Airport grounds. This improvement program
enhanced the safety, capacity, efficiency, and appearance of the Airport, and made it one of the finest
airport facilities in the State of Oregon.
Over the past decade, many more improvements were made at the Airport, also enhancing safety
and operational efficiency. This includes a new 6,000 foot long parallel air carrier runway, Runway
16L/34R (with a Category I instrument landing system), upgrades of primary Runway 16R/34L to a
1-1
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
Category III instrument landing system, roadway realignment to protect the new runway protection
zone, and several new maintenance facilities.
1.2 Location
Eugene Airport is located approximately 10 miles northwest of Eugene’s central/traditional business
district. Eugene is located in the Willamette River Valley, in central Lane County, in west central
Oregon. Eugene and Lane County are centered on the Interstate 5 corridor, which extends north-
south through Oregon, between the Cascade Mountains and Pacific Ocean. Most of Oregon’s
Exhibit 1-1.
population resides within the Interstate 5 corridor. A location map is presented in
Eugene is located at the intersection of several major roadways, including Interstate 5, Interstate Spur
105, and State Highways 126, 99, and 58. State Highway 126 is the main east-west artery for this
region. State Highway 99 extends northwest from Eugene. State Highway 58 enters Lane County
southeast of Eugene and extends to the City before joining Interstate 5. Access to the Airport is via
Airport Road, from State Highway 99, from Beltline Highway and I-105, from I-5. Another route to the
Airport, from South Eugene/Florence/etc. is Route 126/West 11th to Greenhill Road, then to the
Airport.
1.3 Climate
Weather conditions, including temperature, wind and cloud coverage, are important considerations in
airport operations and development. Temperature is considered in determining runway length
requirements. Wind speed and direction are taken into account in determining runway orientation.
Visibility, limited by cloud coverage, is considered in determining the need for navigational aids.
EUG’s climate is characteristic of the Pacific Northwest. The rainy season typically begins in
September and extends through May, and annual precipitation (predominantly rain, sometimes snow)
averages 51 inches. November is the wettest month (8.4 inches precipitation is average), and July
the driest (0.6 inches precipitation on average). August has the highest average mean maximum
temperature, 82 degrees Fahrenheit, and January has the lowest average mean minimum
temperature, 33 degrees Fahrenheit. The coldest months exceed 80 percent average cloud cover;
warmer months have less than 40 percent average cloud cover.
1-2
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
Exhibit 1-1. Location Map
1-3
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
1.4 Airport Role
The Federal Aviation Administration National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) identifies
over 3,300 airports significant to national air transportation, and eligible to receive grants. The 2007-
2011 NPIAS shows EUG as a Non-Hub, Commercial Service, Primary Airport. The basic Airport
service provider to the community is Commercial Service – Primary. A Non-Hub commercial service
airport accounts for less than 0.05 percent of total U.S. Passenger enplanements, but more than
10,000 annual enplanements. EUG has historically been a Small Hub airport, accounting for between
0.05 and 0.25 percent of total U.S. passenger enplanements, but in 2006 it qualifies as a Non-Hub.
Eugene is the second busiest airport in Oregon, behind Portland International Airport.
EUG’s service area includes Lane, Benton, Douglas, and Linn Counties. The service area is a
function of geography and access to EUG and other commercial service airports. It extends to an
approximate 60 miles radius from the Airport, a drive time of about one hour. The four counties
proximity to Interstate 5 provides relatively easy access to the Airport.
EUG is served by four airlines: US Airways Express, Delta Connection, Horizon Air and United
Express. Daily scheduled service typically includes 27 departures and 28 arrivals. Commercial
service aircraft include the Canadair Regional Jet -200 (50 seats), -700 (70-75 seats) and -900 (90
seats); Dash 8 Q200 (37-39 seats) and Q400 (70-78 seats) turboprops; and Embraer 120 (30 seats)
Table 1-1
turboprops. lists EUG’s top ten destinations based on Origin & Destination (O&D)
passenger traffic. Total O&D passenger numbers are equal to roughly double the passenger
enplanement numbers.
Table 1-1:
Following the events of September 11,
EUG Top 10 Domestic O&D Markets
2001, airline passenger traffic dropped
Rank DestinationO&D Passengers
dramatically nationwide. As passenger
1 San Francisco 79,390
traffic counts fell, commercial air carriers
2 Los Angeles 45,220
responded by reducing ticket prices and
cutting capacity, the number of seats in the
3 Phoenix 34,960
market. During this period EUG, and most
4 Seattle 32,060
of the smaller markets in the U.S.,
5 Denver 26,900
experienced significant reductions in airline
6 Las Vegas 24,940
service. Larger jet aircraft were replaced
7 Salt Lake City 24,940
with smaller regional jets and or turboprops
8 San Diego 23,340
and in some markets flight schedules
9 Orange County 17,080
Table 1-2)
(frequencies) were cut (see ,
10 Chicago 14,030
EUG was hit especially hard by these
Source: Data Base Products CY2005
service reductions. The Airport’s capacity
was reduced by one-third, airlines increased ticket prices and, not surprising, passenger traffic
decreased. Beginning in 2004, the Airport’s airlines began adding back capacity and passenger
traffic climbed.
1-4
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
During this period, airlines not only
Table 1-2:
reduced service to smaller
EUG Scheduled Seats and O&D Enplanements 2000-2005
communities like Eugene, but also
ScheduledTotal
Year
transferred the bulk of their
Airline Seats O&D Enplanements
operations at these airports to
2000 692,523 659,280
regional airlines. Today all of EUG’s
2001 644,297 633,880
commercial air service is provided by
2002 437,294 545,130
regional carriers that are marketed
2003 434,681 531,490
via code-share agreements with their
2004 516,672 626,480
larger airline partners, United
2005 497,111 642,470
Airlines, Delta Air Lines, US Airways,
Source: Data Base Products
and Alaska Airlines. The bulk of
EUG’s airline passenger traffic is
produced by regional carriers with non-scheduled charter carriers generating the balance.
Cargo is regularly transported on aircraft at EUG, and military aircraft frequent the Airport
environment. EUG supports the general aviation (GA) community, which includes aircraft not used
for commercial passenger and air cargo service. In 2006 there were 178 GA aircraft based at EUG,
including many operated by local corporations that support business throughout Oregon and across
the nation. Recreational and hobby aircraft are also an important part of the GA community at EUG.
Aircraft at EUG are served by one full-service fixed base operator – Flightcraft Services; two limited
service fixed base operators – Friendly Air Service and Lawrence Air Service; and one helicopter
fixed base operator, Heli-Trade. Fixed base operators (FBOs) provide fueling, ground handling, and
maintenance services to commercial and general aviation aircraft. Flight training is offered by the
FBO’s, and by Lane Community College’s Lane Aviation Academy.
EUG is home to public service facilities that enhance the safety of the community. Sheriff patrol, fire
fighting, emergency medical, and search and rescue are public safety benefits provided to area
residents by the Airport.
EUG is important to the area’s infrastructure; is vital to attracting and sustaining local economic
development; and is essential to providing air travel for the region.
1.5 Airport Management and Financial Information
The City of Eugene is owner and operator of the Eugene Airport. EUG is overseen by an airport
manager and staff, directed by the Eugene City Council, and advised by the Airport Advisory
Committee. Land use around the airport is controlled by the City of Eugene and Lane County.
The Airport Manager oversees the day to day operations of the Airport, as well as budgeting,
planning, engineering, and construction. The Eugene Airport Advisory Committee develops
recommendations by providing an ongoing citizen perspective and review of airport capital
improvement projects, environmental issues, airport finances, air service development and airport
policy.
1-5
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
There are different sources of airport revenue. The FAA provides the majority of capital improvement
funding through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which provides grants to public
municipalities – and, in some cases to private owners and entities – for the planning and development
of public-use airports. AIP grants are generally 95 percent Federal, with a 5 percent local match, and
provide funds for projects for infrastructure improvement (such as runways and taxiways), noise
mitigation, land acquisition, navigational aids, safety and security. EUG receives AIP entitlement
funds based on a formula set by law, and can also apply for discretionary funds through this program.
EUG uses general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, state lottery loans, passenger facility charges.
Operating revenues include automobile parking fees, aircraft landing fees, concession agreements,
and lease payments from airport tenants. Income is used to pay capital improvements, operating
expenses, and for AIP local match. Major airport improvement expenses include large capital
projects, such as runway construction and rehabilitation, and terminal expansion and remodeling.
Major operating expenses include airfield and terminal maintenance, aircraft rescue and fire fighting,
security, and administrative costs. These items will be documented and presented as part of the
financial feasibility element of this Master Plan Update.
2.
Facilities Inventory
2.1 Land
EUG is located on approximately 2,340 acres, owned in fee simple by the City of Eugene. The
majority of the land is used for pavements, facilities, and structures, and for the FAA-specified
separations, setbacks, and clearances established for the protection of these airfield items. Land is
also used for roadways, farming, livestock, and drainage. Increased concerns about airport-
compatible land use may require acquisition or control of additional property.
2.2 Airport Facilities
Airport facilities included in this inventory discussion include: runways, taxiways, aircraft parking
ramps, storage hangars, Fixed Base Operators, snow removal/maintenance, aircraft rescue and
Exhibit 1-2
firefighting, fueling, and navigational aids. shows existing airport facilities.
1-6
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
Runways
Runway 16R-34L is the primary runway, and is 8,009 feet long and 150 feet wide. It is designed to
accommodate aircraft with wingspan up to 170 feet and approach speed up to 165 knots, meeting
FAA design criteria for Airport Reference Code (ARC) D-IV aircraft. This category includes aircraft as
large as Boeing 767, Boeing 787, and Airbus A300. Runway 16R-34L has grooved asphalt surface,
and weight bearing capacity of 75,000 lbs. single wheel, 200,000 lbs. dual wheel, and 400,000 lbs
dual tandem.
Runway 16L-34R is the secondary runway, and is 6,000 feet long and 150 feet wide. It is parallel to
primary Runway 16R-34L, separated by 4,300 feet between runway centerlines. Runway 16L-34R is
designed to accommodate the same aircraft as Runway 16R-34L. Runway 16L-34R was a
recommendation of the 2000 Master Plan Update, and the runway became operational in 2006, as
former crosswind Runway 3-21 was decommissioned and converted to Taxiway P. Runway 16L-34R
has a grooved asphalt surface, and weight bearing capacity of 105,000 lbs. single wheel, 175,000 lbs.
dual wheel, and 240,000 lbs. dual tandem.
Runway 16L-34R is intended to serve general aviation aircraft, but will also serve commercial service
aircraft when Runway 16R-34L is offline for improvement or maintenance, or when demand
necessitates.
Two parallel runways allow for simultaneous operations on both runways, without intersecting flight
patterns. During peak operation periods, aircraft are separated by approach speed, so that larger,
faster aircraft use one runway and smaller, slower aircraft another. Wind coverage of the parallel
Table 1-3
runways is shown in .
Table 1-3: Wind Coverage – All Hours
Crosswind
<10.5 Knots <13 Knots <16 Knots
Component
Runway All Weather IFR All Weather IFR All Weather IFR
16R-34L/16L-34R
98.11% 99.72%99.17% 99.82%99.89% 99.93%
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center 1993-2002
Taxiways
The airport has an extensive taxiway system, including full parallel taxiways serving each runway.
Taxiway A has an offset separation of 500 feet from Runway 16R-34L, and has 9 connecting
taxiways (A1-A9). Taxiway B has an offset separation of 400 feet from Runway 16L-34R, and has 4
connecting taxiways (B1-B4). Taxiways C through P provide aircraft access across the airfield.
Table 1-4
summarizes EUG’s taxiways.
1-8
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
Table 1-4: Taxiways
Taxiway Width
OrientationDescription
Designation (ft)
A 75 N-S Parallel to Runway 16R-34L
B 75 N-S Parallel to Runway 16L-34R
C 75 E-W Connects parallel runways
D 75 NW-SE Connects Taxiway A to terminal ramp
E 75 E-W Connects Taxiway A to terminal ramp
F 75 NW-SE Connects Taxiway A to terminal ramp
G 75 SW-NE Connects Taxiway A to terminal ramp
H 75 E-W Connects Taxiway A to south GA ramp
K 50 SW-NE Connects north GA ramp to main ramp (weight
L 35 E-W Connects Taxiway A to cargo area
M 75 E-W Connects Taxiway B to north and east GA areas
N 50 N-S Connects Taxiway M to east GA ramp
P 75 SW-NE Connects Taxiways M and C to Taxiway A
R 75 E-W Connects Taxiway B to east GA ramp
Note: There is no Taxiway I or O
Source: Airport Layout Plan
Aircraft Parking Ramps
There are five ramp areas: the terminal ramp, three general aviations ramps, and a cargo ramp. The
terminal ramp area is on the airfield side of the passenger terminal, and is used by commercial
service aircraft during loading, unloading, servicing, and overnight storage. The approximate 25,000
square yards (sy) capacity of this ramp is maximized by the pier design of the terminal building.
Three general aviation ramps (north, south, and east) are used by general aviation and charter
aircraft for overnight, temporary, and long-term aircraft storage and service. The north ramp contains
a stress pad to accommodate larger aircraft without damage to the ramp, as charter aircraft activity
can bring larger aircraft, such as Boeing 737 and 757. The south ramp also has a stress pad to
accommodate similar larger aircraft. The east ramp serves aircraft utilizing Runway 16L-34R, and will
serve future east side development. The ramps contain tie-downs for aircraft storage.
The cargo apron provides the transfer of shipments between aircraft and truck. The cargo apron is
located southeast of Runway End 34L, near the primary runway, and away from FBO, passenger,
and general aviation activity. In 2007, a project began to improve the cargo apron from 13,067sy,
accommodating 7 (smaller) aircraft, to 26,133sy, accommodating 7 (larger) aircraft. This
improvement will add a new facility, consolidating cargo processing from locations across the airfield
to a centralized site. This facility and ramp will also accommodate charter aircraft and passengers.
1-9
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
Pavement Management
Pavement management is an ongoing process to maintain conditions and utility of airfield pavements.
Exhibit 1-3
shows the 2005 pavement condition.
Aircraft Storage Hangars
Most aircraft based at EUG are stored in hangars, located between the runways, north, south, and
east of the terminal building. These hangars are generally not owned by the airport, but rather by
individuals or entities. EUG has T-hangars and conventional (box) hangars. T-hangars are
multiple "T" shaped hangars, arranged in one rectangular building, housing small single-engine
aircraft. EUG has 15 T-hangar buildings, with 130 T-hangar units. EUG also has 37 conventional
hangars, housing (sometimes multiple) jets, multi-engine, single-engine, and helicopters.
Fixed Base Operators (FBOs)
EUG has one full service fixed base operators: Flightcraft; two limited service FBO’s, Friendly Air
Service and Lawrence Air Service; and one helicopter FBO, Heli-Trade. Flightcraft operates in a
17,110 square-foot facility south of the terminal, with access and parking adjacent to Boeing Drive.
Flightcraft offers fueling, oxygen, aircraft parking (ramp or tie-down), hangars, ground power,
passenger terminal and lounge, charter, aircraft maintenance, avionics sales and service, catering,
rental cars, and courtesy transportation. Flightcraft’s aircraft range from light twin engine aircraft to
stand-up cabin business jets.
Friendly Air Service, a limited service FBO, operates in a 9,381 square-foot facility north of the
terminal, with access and parking from Lockheed Drive. Friendly Air Service offers charter services,
scenic and photo flights, aircraft maintenance, aircraft sales and rentals, and flight instruction. Their
aircraft are single-engine.
Lawrence Air Service is a limited service FBO, providing ground handling services, on-call aircraft
maintenance, deicing, and charter flight ground handling.
Heli-Trade Corporation operates a Bell Helicopter Textron Customer Service Facility and FAA repair
station. Heli-Trade provides component, airframe, and engine maintenance for the Bell helicopters.
Heli-Trade also leases helicopter.
Snow Removal Equipment (SRE) and Airport Maintenance
The 8,431 square-foot SRE building, located north of Taxiway C, houses equipment for responding to
winter weather. The adjacent 9,200 square-foot airport maintenance building, located north of
Taxiway C, houses both airfield maintenance equipment and airport landscaping equipment.
1-10
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Building – Fire Station 12
The ARFF station is located between the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and the terminal. This
station is available from 6:00 AM to 11:30 PM daily by the City Fire Department personnel, and also
with prior permission 24 hours a day/7 days a week. The station has three vehicle bays, kitchen,
lounge, and sleeping areas. Fire fighting equipment includes an Oshkosh 1,500 gallon pumper, a
1,500 gallon Oshkosh Striker, and a disaster trailer equipped with emergency and rescue equipment.
EUG’s facility rating, based on the design aircraft, is Index B, and response time from the initial alarm
to the first vehicle reaching the midpoint of the airfield is less than three minutes.
Aircraft Fueling
EUG has 100LL AvGas self-service, 100LL AvGas full-service, and Jet A full-service. The self
service facility is on the east general aviation ramp, from a 6,000 gallon above-ground tank. Full-
service fueling is carried by mobile fuel vehicles from a fuel facility on Lockheed Drive. The facility
has above-ground tank storage for 60,000 gallons of Jet A and 21,000 gallons of AvGas, and also
has an open bay for expanded fuel storage. There are four mobile fuel vehicles, with a total capacity
of 12,500 gallons.
Navigational Aids
Navigational aids (navaids) include visual or electronic devices, either airborne or on the ground,
which provide point-to-point guidance information or position data to an aircraft. Navaids range from
signal transmissions, to lighting systems, to signage and pavement marking. Navaids support visual
and instrument flight operations and aircraft ground movements; and also provide pilots with
information such as weather data.
Landside Facilities
Landside facilities are located on the airfield, directly support aircraft operations, and are generally
accessible by the public, and adjacent to public parking lots and roads.
General aviation and scheduled commercial passenger terminal could be considered both airside and
landside facilities.
Passenger Terminal
EUG’s Mahlon Sweet Terminal was completed in 1990.
This 89,240sf facility is located southeast of the
intersection of Runway 16R-34L and Taxiway P. The
terminal has Concourse A on the second floor and
Concourse B on the ground floor. The terminal has two
restaurants, rental car service, a gift shop, and an art
gallery.
1-12
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
Federal Aviation Administration/Airport Traffic Control
Tower
The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA's) Airport
Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) is located south of the main
terminal, behind the ARFF facility. This FAA facility is also
home to the Cascade Terminal Radar Approach Control
Facility (TRACON) which controls the airspace around
EUG.
Airport Administration
The Airport Administration Building is locatedon the north side of Lockheed Drive. This 4,178sf
administrative building houses the offices of the Airport Manager, the Airport Facilities and Operations
Manager, and support staff. Two conference rooms, a waiting area, and restrooms are also located
in this building. In addition to supporting daily administration functions, this building also hosts
airport-related public meetings.
Transportation Security Administration
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) operates in the terminal, with offices in a building
west of the Airport Administration building.
Parking and Traffic Circulation
The main parking lot, located adjacent to the terminal, has 241 short-term and 714 long-term spaces.
The overflow parking lot, located southeast of the terminal, has 585 spaces, and is served by a
shuttle to/from the terminal. The employee parking lot, located north of the terminal, has
approximately 200 spaces. The automobile rental ready/return lot is located in front of the terminal,
and the rental lot and service building are located north of short-term parking area.
Airport vicinity roads include Airport Road, Douglas Drive, Boeing Drive, Northrop Drive, Hollis Lane,
Kokkeller Road, Merryman Road, and Lockheed Drive. Douglas Drive accesses the terminal area
from Green Hill Road. Douglas Drive changes to Northrop Drive near Lockheed Drive, and again
changes to Hollis Lane north of Taxiway C. Northrop Drive accesses the east hangar area. Hollis
Lane accesses the corporate hangars and the SRE building. Lockheed Drive accesses the north
hangar and FBO area, and airport administration. Kokkeller Road accesses the cargo area along the
south side of the airport. Merryman Road accesses the west side of the airfield. Airport Road
accesses the south hangar and FBO area via Boeing Drive. Airport Road provides access to the
south hangar and FBO area via Boeing Drive. Airport Road also extends east around the south end
of Runway 34R, past Green Hill Road, to State Highway 99. In 2006, a portion of Airport Road was
relocated to provide increased separation from Runway End 34R, and to provide improved traffic flow
to the terminal area.
Vehicle access by regional traffic is by Interstate 5, which runs north and south several miles east of
the Airport, and connects to Interstate Spur 105, Delta Highway and Beltline Highway, and to State
1-13
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
Highway 99. Access from downtown Eugene is by State Highway 99, to Airport Road, to Northrop
Drive, and the terminal. Taxis, limos, and shuttles provide access from the Airport’s service area.
Lane Aviation Academy
Lane Community College’s Lane Aviation Academy has three
hangar buildings, a classroom (original terminal building), and
an administrative building, located on the south side of the
airport. The department offers programs in aviation flight and
aviation maintenance.
Oregon Air and Space Museum
The Oregon Air and Space Museum is an educational, non-
profit, aviation museum dedicated to the acquisition of
historically significant aircraft and artifacts. This facility is
located off of Boeing Drive. Displays include McDonnell
Douglas F-4 Phantom, A4 Skyhawk, Grumman A-6 Intruder,
North American F-86 Sabre Jet, Fokker Dr 1 Triplane, Taylor
2100 Bullet, Mikoyan/ Gurevich MiG-17, and Yakovlev Yak-50.
Oregon Wing Civil Air Patrol
The headquarters of the Oregon Wing of the Civil Air Patrol
(CAP), the official auxiliary of the US Air Force, is located on
the south side of the Airport. The CAP headquarters is housed
in an administrative office and hangar complex. Civil Air Patrol
(headquartered at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama) is a non-
profit, federally-chartered volunteer organization dedicated to
serving the people of the United States through emergency
services, education, and a cadet program. The Oregon Wing
is home to 17 units with approximately 700 members.
Air Freight Office
Alaska/Horizon Cargo, operated by Horizon Air, processes air freight for commercial carrier
operations. The 6,112sf air freight office is located in the old air traffic control tower building, north of
the terminal, next to the maintenance hangar. This operation will be relocating to the new air cargo
facility.
Utilities
Several area utilities companies, as well as the City, provide utilities to the airport. Water service is
by the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB). Wastewater is carried by an on-airport sanitary
sewer system to the City’s nearby treatment plant. Electricity is provided by EWEB, Emerald
People’s Utility District, and the Blachly Lane Cooperative. Telephone is provided by Quest. Natural
gas is provided by Northwest Natural Gas.
1-14
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
As part of this Master Plan Update, utility information from surveys and record drawings will be
inventoried, consolidated, and included in electronic mapping.
Drainage
Stormwater runoff is carried by underground and surface drainage systems to drainage ditches on the
airport’s northern and western borders, to Clear Lake Channel, a portion of Amazon Creek, which
runs west of the Airport.
Tables 1-5 1-6
and give summaries of airport environs and features.
Table 1-5: Airport Environs
Property Principal Surrounding Land Uses
Land owned in fee simple: 2,340 acres Wetlands (in immediate vicinity)
Agriculture
Access
Fern Ridge Reservoir (to west)
Interstate 5 or Interstate Spur 105/Delta
Urban development – Santa Clara (to east)
Highway, to Beltline, to State Highway
Urban development – Eugene (to south)
99, to Airport Road
Urban development – Junction City (to north)
State Highway 126 to Greenhill Road to
Topography
Airport Road
Airport elevation 374 MSL
Located in Willamette Valley, between
Cascade Mountains and Coastal Range
Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc.
1-15
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
Table 1-6: Major Features and Facilities Summary
Runways Instrument Approach Procedures
Runway 16R-34L: 8,009ft x 150ft, grooved asphalt Runway 16R
surface; full parallel 75 ft taxiway, 500ft separation ILS or LOC/DME Z
Runway 16L-34R: 6,000ft x 150 ft, grooved asphalt ILS (CAT II)
ILS (CAT III)
surface; full parallel 75ft taxiway, 400ft separation
VOR/DME or TACAN
Runway Navigational Aids
GPS
Runway 16R
ILS or LOC Y
Instrument Landing System (ILS), w/Category I, II, and
Runway 34L
III Configurations
RNAV (GPS)
Localizer with Distance Measuring Equipment
VOR/DME or TACAN
(LOC/DME) (on opposite runway end)
Runway 16L
High Intensity Approach Light System w/Sequenced
ILS or LOC/DME
Flashing Lights, Category II Configuration (ALSF2)
RNAV (GPS)
Glideslope, 3° glide path
Runway 34R
4-light Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI), 3°
RNAV (GPS)
glide path
Airport (Circling)
Touchdown zone lights (TDZL)
VOR or GPS-A
Precision marking
Instrument Departure Procedures
Runway 34L
Omni-Directional Approach Lighting System (ODALS)Eugene Seven
4-box Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI), 3° glide
path
Building Area
Precision markings
Located between runways
Runway 16L
Passenger terminal building
ILS, w/Category I Configuration
FAA ATC /TRACON
Localizer with Distance Measuring Equipment
Transportation Security Administration
(LOC/DME) (on opposite runway end)
Fixed base operators
Medium Intensity Approach Light System w/Runway
ARFF building
Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR)
Private hangars
Glideslope, 3° glide path
Airport administration
4-light PAPI, 3° glide path
Airport maintenance
Precision marking
Air cargo office
Runway 34R
Lane Community College
Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)
Oregon Air and Space Museum
4-light PAPI (3 degrees)
City storage
Precision markings
Runway 16R-34L
Fixed Base Operators (FBOs)
Centerline lights (CL)
Flightcraft
High Intensity Runway Lighting (HIRL)
Friendly Air Service
Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITL)
Lawrence Air Service
Runway Visible Range (RVR)
Heli-Trade
Runway 16L-34R: HIRL, MITL, Centerline reflectors
Fuel
100LL AvGas (full- and self-service)
Airport Navigational Aids
Jet A (full-service)
Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) / Terminal Radar
Approach Control Facility (TRACON)
Emergency and Security
VHF Omni Directional Range/Tactical Air Navigation
ARFF Index B
(VORTAC)
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS)
provides passenger/baggage screening
Automated Terminal Information System (ATIS)
Eugene Police
Rotating beacon
Lighted wind indicators
Segmented circle
Stand-alone weather system (SAWS)
Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc.
1-16
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
3. Airspace and Air Traffic Control
The Federal Aviation Administration Act of 1958 established the FAA as the responsible agency for
the control and use of navigable airspace. Navigable airspace determines the capacity and the
operational interaction of EUG with surrounding airports and airways. Flights are conducted using
both Visual Flight Rules (VFR), during fair weather, and Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), during adverse
weather. Published instrument procedures outline aircraft flight path and altitude.
Three components of the airspace system encompass EUG: enroute, transitional, and terminal
airspace facilities. Each component has a specific function and is supported in its role by a network
Exhibit 1-4
of air traffic control and NAVAIDs. EUG’s airspace is depicted in .
3.1 Enroute Airspace
Eugene Approach Control is charged with controlling any aircraft requesting air traffic services
operating under VFR and IFR in the Eugene area which are destined for Eugene Airport, Rogue
Valley International-Medford, or Corvallis Municipal Airport. Aircraft flying through the region or to an
airport in the area typically follow designated routes known as Victor Airways or jet routes. These
airways are defined by VORs located throughout the country. Aircraft in the Eugene area following
these routes are controlled by the Eugene Tower Approach Control.
3.2 Transitional Airspace
Transitional areas are FAA-defined Class E airspace areas, beginning at either 700 or 1,200 feet,
used by aircraft to transition between the terminal and en route airspace. As EUG has an ATCT, the
airport is within FAA-defined Class D airspace, which extends from the surface to 2,500 feet above
the airport elevation, and includes the airspace for instrument procedures. Within Class D airspace,
aircraft are subject to certain pilot qualifications, operating rules, and equipment requirements, and
aircraft must maintain communications with the ATCT.
3.3 Terminal Airspace Facilities
EUG’s terminal airspace facilities include the visual and electronic equipment, navaids, and personnel
used to aid pilots in navigating to, and landing at, an airport. The Airport ATCT is located south of the
main terminal, behind the ARFF facility. The tower operates from 6 am to 11:30 pm.
3.4 Instrument Procedures
EUG has 12 instrument approach procedures: 6 for Runway End 16R, 2 for 34L, 2 for 16L, 1 for 34R,
and 1 serving the airport. EUG has one instrument departure procedure, and has take-off minimums
and (obstacle) departure procedures.
1-17
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
4. Socioeconomic Trends
Table 1-7:
Socioeconomic aspects, including population,
Historic and Projected Population
employment, and income, are evaluated for EUG’s market
YearPopulation
service area, and compared to national data, to reveal
Historic
local trends. EUG’s market service area includes Lane,
1997 597,721
Benton, Douglas, and Linn Counties. Socioeconomic data
1998 601,954
comes from Woods & Poole, a census information
1999 603,858
company.
2000 605,090
2001 606,426
4.1 Population
2002 612,143
2003 617,663
Table 1-7
shows EUG’s market service area population,
2004 620,258
both historic and projected. This population has increased
2005 626,936
from 597,721 in 1997 to 634,421 in 2006, a 0.66%
2006 634,421
compound annual growth rate (CAGR). The nation’s
Projection
population over this time increased at a 1.18% CAGR.
2011 664,400
The population is projected to increase to 664,400 in
2016 695,914
2011, to 695,914 in 2016, and to 763,553 in 2026,
2026 763,553
representing a 0.93% CAGR.
CAGR 1997-2006 0.66%
CAGR 2006-2026 0.93%
4.2 Employment
Source: Woods & Poole
Table 1-8:
Table 1-8
shows EUG’s market service area employment,
Historic and Projected Employment
both historic and projected. This employment has
YearEmployment
increased from 335,832 in 1997 to 357,002 in 2006, a
0.68% CAGR. The employment is projected to increase
Historic
1997 335,832
to 380,893 in 2011, to 404,663 in 2016, and to 451,897 in
1998 340,039
2026, representing a 1.19% CAGR. Since 1997, the
1999 342,455
unemployment rate in the State of Oregon has been one
2000 346,349
point to two points higher than the national rate.
2001 342,555
2002 343,518
2003 342,543
2004 347,377
2005 352,195
2006 357,002
Projection
2011 380,893
2016 404,663
2026 451,897
CAGR 1997-2006 0.68%
CAGR 2006-2026 1.19%
Source: Woods & Poole
1-19
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
Table 1-9
shows employment distribution. Employment in EUG’s market service area is distributed
among several categories, the greatest being service.
Table 1-9:
Employment by Sector
SectorPercentage
Services 30.31
Retail Trade 17.13
Manufacturing 13.80
State and Local Government 13.72
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 6.36
Construction 5.00
Transportation, Communications & Public Utilities 3.15
Wholesale Trade 3.09
Farm Employment 3.04
Agricultural Services, other 2.35
Federal Civilian Government 1.28
Federal Military Government 0.64
Mining 0.11
Source: Woods & Poole
4.3 Income
Table 1-10:
Historic and Projected Income Per Capita
Table 1-10
shows EUG’s market service area average
Income Per Capita
income per capita, both historic and projected. This
Year
(1996 Dollars)
income per capita has increased from $22,023 in 1997
Historic
to $23,938 in 2006, a 0.93% CAGR. The income per
1997 $22,023
capita is projected to increase to $25,126 in 2011, to
1998 $22,649
$26,361 in 2016, and to $29,035 in 2026, representing a
1999 $22,922
0.97% CAGR.
2000 $23,308
2001 $23,607
Evaluation of the socioeconomic variables of population,
2002 $23,489
employment, and income indicate a healthy economy
2003 $23,259
expected to experience modest growth. The economy
2004 $23,560
of EUG’s market service area is diverse, and economic
2005 $23,776
stability is expected to continue.
2006 $23,938
Projection
2011 $25,126
2016 $26,361
2026 $29,035
CAGR 1997-20060.93%
CAGR 2006-20260.97%
Source: Woods & Poole
1-20
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
4.4 Land Use and Urban Growth
Land use planning in the environs of the Airport protects the Airport and airport-related uses.
Incompatible land uses can limit the Airport’s development potential, and can represent a potential
safety threat. Local planning and zoning authority provides essential land use tools to preserve
airport and airport-related functions, and protect against incompatibility. Both the City of Eugene and
Exhibits 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8
Lane County have zoning which affects the airport. and show City and
County zoning.
Incompatible land uses have the potential to develop near the Airport. Agricultural and rural/industrial
land is east of the Airport, and large to mid-sized residential lots and hobby farms are to the west.
Development near Fir Butte Road and Clear Lake Road, zoned by Lane County for residential use,
may be a concern, as it is ¾ mile south of Runway End 34L. Development along Green Hill Road,
near Barger Drive may also be a concern, as it is 2 miles south of Runway End 34R.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) contains policies relating to the
Airport, and depicts generalized land use designations for the Airport and environs. Parcels within
the airport boundaries are subject to Metro Plan land use designations, and to specific uses allowed
in Lane County zoning districts, as outlined in Chapter 16 of the Lane Code.
The Land County Code and Eugene Land Use Code include provisions for a Commercial Airport
Safety Combining Zone (CAS-RCP) and Commercial Airport Safety Overlay Zone (/CAS),
respectively. These zoning overlay districts allow Lane County and the City of Eugene to regulate the
scope of development near EUG that may pose a hazard to air navigation. This zoning classification
is place on top of existing zoning, so that in the event of diverging standards, the more stringent
regulations apply. The City of Eugene's jurisdiction covers development not only within the city limits
proper, but within all areas inside the city's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)." The Airport is entirely
outside the UGB of Eugene and is subject to County zoning. The Airport is zone AO (Airport
Operations) and the regulations for that zone are contained in Land Code Chapter 16. The purpose
of this zone is to recognize those areas devoted to or most suitable for the immediate operational
facilities necessary for commercial and noncommercial aviation. In addition, the AO zone is intended
to provide areas of certain open space uses for airfield ground maintenance and as a buffer to
minimize potential dangers from and conflicts with, the use of aircraft.
Within the CAS-RCP and CAS zones are FAA-defined imaginary surfaces for protecting air
navigation. These surfaces regulate the height of structures surrounding the airfield. Generally, the
nearer a structure is to the runway, the more limited its height.
1-21
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
The City of Eugene regulates the zoning within its UGB, while Lane County regulates the area
outside the UGB. The statute is being further examined in the state court system, in regard to legality
and implementation. The regulations for this combining zone are contained in Lane Code Chapter
16. The purpose of the /CAS Combining Zone is to prevent the creation or establishment of
obstructions or other hazards to air navigation and flight such as distracting light and glare producing
surfaces, radio interference, smoke, steam, dust, and areas which attract birds and hazards of a
similar nature. A portion of the imaginary surfaces are within the UGB of Eugene and another portion
is within the city limits of Junction City. Land uses inside those areas are regulated by Eugene and
Junction City, respectively.
4.5 Urban Growth
Lane County is experiencing growth in new residential units, although growth between 2000 and 2005
has been lower than between 1994 and 1999. Between 1994 and 1999, 11,306 new residential
permits were issued. Between 2000 and 2005, 6,607permits were issued. However, in 2005, the
number of permits issued reached a level commensurate with the late 1990s. Between 1990 and
2005, the percentage of new multi-family housing units as a percentage of all residential units was at
its highest in the late 1990s, and its lowest in years 2000, 2002, and 2003. However, there has been
an increase in 2004 and 2005.
Cities in Lane County annexed 2,143 acres from unincorporated areas with the most areas going to
Springfield. Between 2000 and 2005, the City of Eugene annexed 397.45 acres. Annexations in the
last 20 years have occurred in the northwest metro area along River Road, Prairie Road, Highway 99,
and in far west Eugene. Annexations are connected to municipal sewer and water services, allowing
for high density development. Growth is expected to continue as developments take advantage of
available infrastructure extensions. The UGB helps prevent encroachment of the Airport by
incompatible land uses as the Airport is outside the UGB, but within the Metro Plan boundary.
In addition to Commercial Airport Safety Combining Zone and 2004 Metro Plan policies, Eugene has
created an urban growth boundary, to encourage greater utilization of land in urban areas, to prevent
unorganized, sprawling development, and to conserve open space. The urban growth boundary
helps prevent encroachment of the Airport by incompatible land uses, even though the Airport is
outside the urban growth boundary.
Subsequent elements of this Master Plan Update will consider issues related to the future
compatibility of land use with respect to aircraft operations. In addition to local and state land use
regulations, federal laws also influence where development at the Airport, and around the Airport, can
take place.
1-26
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
5. Aviation Activity
This sections reviews historic aviation activity trends at EUG (passenger enplanments, aircraft
operations and based aircraft) and recent changes in domestic scheduled commercial and general
aviation activity at the national level.
5.1 Enplanements
Graph1-1
Passenger enplanements (see ) are broken down into two categories: major/national and
regional/commuter. For decades, major/national enplanements at EUG fluctuated between 150,000
and 280,000. A downward trend began in 1999, until there were no major/national enplanements at
EUG in 2003. In contrast, regional/commuter enplanements have increased, even dramatically in the
last few years. In 2001, regional/commuter enplanements first exceeded major/national
enplanements at EUG, and today regional/commuter enplanements dominate EUG’s activity.
EUG, like many similar airports across the US, has experienced a decrease in major/national airlines.
In 1988, United Airlines, US Air, and Continental Airlines served EUG. In 1998 only United remained,
and today no major/national carrier serves EUG, resulting in no major/national enplanements.
The number of regional/commuter airlines at EUG has fluctuated since 1988, although Horizon Air
and United Express have maintained service for nearly two decades. Similar to national trends,
regional/commuter airlines continue to play an increasingly important role at EUG, and are now the
sole provider of scheduled commercial passenger service. In 2006, regional passenger
enplanements reached a high of 360,258.
5.2 Operations
An aircraft operation is a take off or landing of an aircraft. An operation is counted for each landing
and each departure, such that a touch-and-go flight is counted as two operations. There are two basic
types of operations—local and itinerant.
Graph 1-2
Aircraft operations (see ) at EUG from 1976 to 1994 have shown relative volatility and from
1995 to 2005 relative stability. There have been two major spikes in aircraft operations at EUG—one
in late 1979 and another in 1990. The first peak was due to a combination of strong operations levels
across the board. The second peak was due to exceptionally high levels of local general aviation
operations. From 1990 to 2002, operations steadily declined and have since leveled out. Instrument
operations, generally aircraft that are on an instrument flights rules flight path, have steadily
increased.
1-27
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
Graph 1-1: Historical Passenger Enplanements 1976-2006
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Year
TotalRegional/CommuterMajor/National
Source: Airport management records
Graph 1-2: Historical Aircraft Operations 1976-2006
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Year
TotalGeneral AviationCommercialMilitary
Source: Airport management records
1-28
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
Since 2002, total aircraft operations at EUG have been the lowest recorded by the FAA in their
Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). Much of the decline can be attributed to fewer general aviation
operations.
Operations at EUG generally reflect national trends. From 2000 to 2004, operations at towered
airports declined around 12%, but in 2005, general aviation operations at towered airports increased
around 2%, a trend which EUG is not reflecting.
5.3 Based Aircraft
Based aircraft are aircraft stationed at an airport on a long-term basis. Based aircraft at EUG had
peaks in the early 1990’s and late 1990’s, increased from 20032005, and decreased in 2006 (see
Graph 1-3
). The fleet mix has also changed, such that in 2004, based jet aircraft began to outnumber
multi-engine aircraft. Single engine aircraft continue to be the dominant based aircraft type at EUG.
Graph 1-3: Historical Based Aircraft 1980-2006
250
200
150
100
50
0
Year
TotalSingle EngineMulti EngineJetHelicopter
Source: Airport management records
1-29
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
BACKGROUND AND INVENTORY CHAPTER 1
5.4 Air Cargo
Total enplaned cargo at EUG has generally declined since 1999, especially since air mail has
Graph 1-4
dropped significantly to zero (see ). Enplaned cargo at EUG now consists of freight, which
has been steady since 2001.
Graph 1-4: Historical Air Cargo 1997-2006
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
Year
MailFreightTotal
Source: Airport management records
1-30
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
2
2
Chapter
Forecasts of Aviation Demand
1. Introduction
Eugene Airport (EUG) is an active, thriving facility, with people boarding and exiting aircraft, freight
loading and unloading to and from aircraft, aircraft departing and arriving, and aircraft being stored and
serviced. Each activity is accommodated by facilities and services which are sized based on activity
levels. Forecasting is used to estimate potential future activity levels, by evaluating historical activity, and
applying projection methods. This is done so the appropriate facilities and services can be planned and
implemented. Forecasted activity levels affect airport capital improvement programming, funding, and
budgeting, as well as facilities, services, and staff.
The activities evaluated and forecasted in this Master Plan Update include passenger enplanements,
aircraft operations, based aircraft, and air cargo. Many methods of forecasting are available, and multiple
methods are applied to each activity. Results for each activity are compared among themselves, and with
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) forecasts. Consideration is given to forecasting methods that best
represent reasonable expectations. The preferred forecasts are submitted to the FAA for review and
acceptance. Significant variation from FAA’s own forecast requires justification to be accepted by the
FAA.
The historic data range to be used in the forecasting effort is from 1997 through 2006. Activity levels are
forecast to 5, 10, and 20 years from the base year (2006), thus giving results for years 2011, 2016, and
2026.
2-1
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
2. Passenger Enplanements
Passenger enplanements are the activity of passengers boarding commercial service aircraft departing
from EUG. Enplanements include passengers on scheduled commercial service aircraft, and on non-
scheduled charter aircraft. Enplanements do not include airline crew.
Passenger enplanement data is provided to Airport management by commercial passenger service
carriers, who maintain data as they transport people to and from EUG. Having actual historic data
instead of estimates gives confidence in using the base data for forecasting.
Evaluation and forecasting do not address deplanements, which are passengers exiting commercial
service aircraft arriving at EUG. It is expected that each departing passenger returns to EUG, so that the
number of enplanements equals the approximate number of deplanements.
Past master plans have separated commercial passenger enplanements into scheduled and charter;
scheduled enplanements into major, national, and regional carriers; and commercial passenger aircraft
into large, commuter, and air taxi. EUG commercial passenger service is primarily scheduled, with
approximately 1.5% charter service. Major and national carriers and aircraft which have served EUG in
the past have been replaced by regional carriers and aircraft. In 2007, there was no scheduled major or
national carrier serving EUG, and none is expected immediately. Accordingly, for this Master Plan
Update, enplanement evaluation and forecasting are not categorized.
2.1 Enplanement History and Industry Trends
This section presents information on historical passenger activity and
Table 2-1:
trends at EUG, and also includes a discussion of general trends in
Enplanement History
travel and in the commercial airline industry.
YearEnplanements
1997 383,890
Table 2-1
shows historical EUG passenger enplanements. As
1998 370,850
shown, there were 383,890 enplanements in 1997, which fell to
1999 355,992
301,339 in 2003 (as a result of the events of September 11, 2001),
2000 376,522
and rose to 360,258 in 2006. The state of Oregon also experienced
2001 364,049
an economic recession following the events of September 11, 2001.
2002 312,735
Due to challenges facing the entire commercial aviation industry over
2003 301,339
the past five or six years, EUG has been typical in terms of seeing a
2004 347,672
loss in traffic and then seeing a slow rebound. The year 2006
2005 360,049
continued the trend of passenger growth, which can be attributed to a
2006 360,258
stronger, leaner airline industry and a stable market base in the
CAGR*
Eugene area.
1997-2006 -0.70%
Since 2000, the aviation industry has been battered with 9/11, SARS,
* Compound Annual Growth Rate
and record fuel prices. Over the last five years, major restructuring
Source: Airport management
and downsizing among the mainline legacy carriers has occurred
records
2-2
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
along with rapid growth among low-cost carriers, and exceptional growth among regional carriers. Two
legacy carriers have filed for bankruptcy protection and two have recently emerged from bankruptcy. The
cost of jet fuel, which is typically an airline’s second largest expense, has doubled in price in the past six
years, hampering the ability of the carriers to return to profitability or emerge from bankruptcy. Even with
these difficult times for carriers, U.S. airports (especially large ones) continue to have the financial
capability to provide safe and efficient air transportation and to raise the money needed to accommodate
future growth in passenger and cargo demand. The year 2006 was considered an adjustment year for
many airlines, with those in bankruptcy working diligently to reduce costs, realign routes, and craft their
strategy to exit from bankruptcy. The FAA projects strong growth in aviation for the US, with total
enplanements projected to increase from 738.6 million in 2005 to 1.07 billion in 2017, reflecting a 3.1%
average growth rate.
2.2 Enplanement Forecast – FAA Terminal Area Forecast
The FAA monitors and projects activity levels at the nation’s
Table 2-2:
airports, and makes this data available through its’ Terminal
Enplanement Forecast – FAA TAF
Table 2-2
Area Forecast (TAF). The FAA TAF, as shown in ,
YearEnplanements
projects EUG enplanements to increase from 360,258 in 2006,
Historic
to 384,483 in 2011, to 423,873 in 2016, and to 515,379 in 2026,
1997 383,890
representing a 1.81% CAGR.
1998 370,850
1999 355,992
2.3 Enplanement Forecast – Market Share
2000 376,522
Methodology
2001 364,049
2002 312,735
Market share forecasting considers EUG’s historic enplanements
2003 301,339
in relation to the nation’s enplanements, and projects EUG
2004 347,672
enplanements as a percentage of national enplanements.
National enplanement projections come from the FAA.
2005 360,049
2006 360,258
Table 2-3
presents an enplanement forecast using the market
Projection
share methodology. As shown, EUG enplanements are forecast
2011 384,483
to increase from 360,258 in 2006, to 412,873 in 2011, to 445,593
2016 423,873
in 2016, and to 557,736 in 2026, representing a 2.21% CAGR.
2026 515,379
Our assumptions for EUG’s market share in future years reflect a
CAGR 1997-
declining share of the U.S. market, as compared to the most
2006 -0.70%
recent year (2006). This position is based on an outlook of the
CAGR 2006-
commercial airline business, and the fact that Eugene will
2026 1.81%
continue to have challenges in this area. This outlook factors in
Source: FAA
potential commercial carrier consolidation, concentration of
carrier operations to larger hub airports, and competition among airports. Accordingly, the market share
1
percentage is decreased for each forecast year. Because of the hard work and innovative techniques
the City has employed in keeping good air service, this forecast is still positive on the whole due to overall
1
The market share assumption for 2011 is held constant at the 2006 level, reflecting stabilization of the industry. For years, 2016
and 2026 were reduced slightly (0.0650% and 0.060%) reflecting small incremental reductions in projected market share based on
the consultant’s experience and judgment.
2-3
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
anticipated U.S. employment growth. Some of these techniques include development of the Airline
Travel Bank™, which has helped launch new airline routes. The City is also aggressively working to
reduce airline costs to help keep them at the Airport (paying down the terminal bond debt is one way they
are doing this).
Table 2-3: Enplanement Forecast – Market Share Methodology
USEUG
YearMarket Share
Enplanements Enplanements
Historic
1997 577,845,747 383,890 0.0664%
1998 590,417,191 370,850 0.0628%
1999 610,924,928 355,992 0.0583%
2000 561,493,888 376,522 0.0671%
2001 546,310,418 364,049 0.0666%
2002 485,921,321 312,735 0.0644%
2003 482,838,537 301,339 0.0624%
2004 502,567,046 347,672 0.0692%
2005 523,143,810 360,049 0.0688%
2006 517,912,372 360,258 0.0696%
Projection
2011 593,552,406 412,873 0.0696%
2016 685,527,557 445,593 0.0650%
2026 929,560,000 557,736 0.0600%
CAGR 1997-2006 -1.21% -0.70%
CAGR 2006-2026 2.97%2.21%
Sources: FAA, Mead & Hunt.
2.4 Enplanement Forecast – Socioeconomic Methodology
Socioeconomic enplanement forecasting considers aspects of EUG’s service market, such as population,
employment and income, and projects EUG activity as a ratio of one of these socioeconomic variables.
For this Master Plan Update, the ratio is developed by comparing historic activity to historic population.
Socioeconomic projections data was developed independent of this planning process by Woods & Poole,
for Lane, Benton, Douglas and Linn Counties.
Table 2-4
presents an enplanement forecast using the socioeconomic methodology, assuming trips per
capita will hold steady at the 10-year historical average of 0.5772. Under this methodology, EUG
enplanements are projected to increase from 360,258 in 2006, to 383,483 in 2011, to 401,673 in 2016,
and to 440,713 in 2026, representing a 1.01% CAGR.
2-4
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
Table 2-4: Enplanement Forecast – Socioeconomic
YearEnplanementsPopulationPer Capita
Historic
1997 383,890 597,721 0.6423
1998 370,850 601,954 0.6161
1999 355,992 603,858 0.5895
2000 376,522 605,090 0.6223
2001 364,049 606,426 0.6003
2002 312,735 612,143 0.5109
2003 301,339 617,663 0.4879
2004 347,672 620,258 0.5605
2005 360,049 626,936 0.5743
2006 360,258 634,421 0.5679
Projection
2011 383,483 664,400 0.5772
2016 401,673 695,914 0.5772
2026 440,713 763,553 0.5772
CAGR 1997-2006 -0.70%
CAGR 2006-2026 1.01%
Sources: Woods & Poole, Mead & Hunt
2.5 Enplanement Forecast – Method Comparison and Preference
Table 2-5 Graph 2-1
and present a comparison of the passenger enplanement forecasts using the
various methods. The market share method projects an increase of 2.21% CAGR. The socioeconomic
method projects the least increase of 1.01% CAGR. The TAF increase of 1.81% CAGR is between the
two. Table 2-5 also shows the difference in the two new forecasts compared with the TAF. As shown, the
Market Share forecast exceeds the TAF by 7% in the first five years, by 5% in the first 10 years, and by
8% in the 20-year horizon. The Socioeconomic forecast is nearly the same as the TAF in the first five
years, 5% below the TAF in the first 10 years, and 14% below the TAF over the 20-year period.
A linear trend method, which projects future enplanements based on historic enplanements, was
considered but did not produce a reliable trend to project and therefore was not used. The reason for the
unreliability of forecasts using this method is that the recent history has been volatile in the airline/airport
businesses, largely due to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Following those attacks, all
airports were closed for a brief period and it took many years to restore public confidence in the aviation
system. Many airports, including Eugene, were affected by these events in terms of reduced traffic.
These methods can be refined, and other methods exist. However, the methods which were used
produce forecasts which are sound and attainable, and are reliable and sufficient from which to select a
preferred method.
2-5
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
The market share method gives the preferred forecast. Even though it is the most aggressive of the three
forecasts, it reflects more closely a combination of positive national trends in the commercial aviation
business, and the fact that the City will continue to work aggressively to provide the community with good
local air service.
Table 2-5: Enplanement Forecast – Comparison
Market Share/
Socio-economic/
MarketTAFSocio-
YearHistoric FAA TAFTAF
Share(% of economic
(% of Difference)
Difference)
Historic
1997 383,890
1998 370,850
1999 355,992
2000 376,522
2001 364,049
2002 312,735
2003 301,339
2004 347,672
2005 360,049
2006 360,258
Projection
2011 (base year + 5) 384,483412,8737%383,483 0%
2016 (base year + 10) 423,873445,5935%401,673 -5%
2026 (base year + 20) 515,379557,7368%440,713 -14%
CAGR
1997-2006 -0.70%
CAGR
2006-2026 1.81%2.21%1.01%
Sources: FAA, Mead & Hunt
2-6
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
Graph 2-1: Enplanement Forecast – Comparison
Historic Forecast
Ø·¬±®·½ Ú±®»½¿¬
Sources: FAA, Mead & Hunt
2.6 Contingency Planning Scenario
For long-range strategic planning purposes, a contingency demand scenario was defined. This scenario,
which is not part of the official forecast to be used for traditional 20-year planning, serves to estimate
additional future demand, factoring in additional capture of passenger diversion (to airports in other
markets) and the air service initiatives the City continues to pursue. The demand/capacity and facility
requirements analysis components of this master planning process will incorporate both the preferred
2026 projection of 557,736 annual enplanements, as well as a contingency demand scenario of 700,000
annual enplanements. There is no timeframe established for this demand level; rather, it is intended to
allow the airport operator to do some contingency planning in case demand grows faster than projected.
In terms of assumptions, the difference of approximately 142,000 enplanements represents seven daily
flights by typical regional aircraft flying at an 80% load factor.
Planning of certain airport facilities (such as the terminal area) based on the latter number should be
characterized as strategic in nature, recognizing that uncertainty exists in the future.
2-7
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
3. Aircraft Operations
Aircraft operations are the activity of moving aircraft in the EUG vicinity, including departing and arriving
aircraft. Observed operations data is provided to Airport management by EUG’s airport traffic control
tower (ATCT), which maintains data as it communicates and controls aircraft in EUG’s vicinity.
Operations are categorized into commercial service, general aviation (GA), and military. Commercial
service includes commercial passenger and cargo. Operations are also categorized into local and
itinerant. Local operations are performed in local traffic patterns within site of the Airport, or in local
practice areas within 20 miles of the Airport. Itinerant operations are non-local. Commercial carrier
operations are itinerant. Military operations are 59 percent itinerant, and 41 percent local (although none
are based at the airport). GA operations are 54 percent itinerant, and 46 percent local. There is no
expected change in itinerant vs. local operations at EUG, and therefore these averages will be maintained
for forecasting.
3.1 Aircraft Operations History
Table 2-6
shows historical aircraft operations. There were 112,643 operations at EUG in 1997, which fell
to 92,779 in 2006. Commercial operations, averaging 28 percent of total EUG operations, fell from
28,256 in 1997 to 24,777 in 2006. GA operations, averaging 70 percent of total EUG operations, fell from
81,722 in 1997 to 66,185 in 2006. Military operations, averaging 2 percent of total EUG operations have
varied over the past 10 years from a low of 989 to a high of 2,665.
Table 2-6: Historical Aircraft Operations
YearCommercial GAMilitary Total
1997 28,256 81,722 2,665 112,643
1998 28,361 78,052 1,995 108,408
1999 29,379 82,017 1,944 113,340
2000 32,602 75,632 2,263 110,497
2001 30,836 70,138 2,445 103,419
2002 24,500 68,620 993 94,113
2003 26,373 63,340 989 90,702
2004 28,166 62,626 1,001 91,793
2005 26,225 61,096 1,704 89,025
2006 24,777 66,185 1,817 92,779
CAGR
1997-2006 -1.45% -2.32% -4.17% -2.13%
Source: Airport management records
2-8
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
3.2 Aircraft Operations Forecast – FAA TAF
The FAA monitors and projects activity levels at the nation’s airports, generates estimates of future
demand levels, and makes this data available in the TAF.
Table 2-7
shows FAA TAF operations. The TAF projects EUG operations to increase, from 92,779 in
2006, to 97,284 in 2011, 102,571 in 2016, and 112,632 in 2026, a 0.97 percent CAGR. Commercial
operations are projected to increase from 24,777 in 2006, to 25,731 in 2011, to 26,961 in 2016, to 29,653
in 2026, a 0.90 percent CAGR. General Aviation operations are projected to increase from 66,185 in
2006, to 69,790 in 2011, to 73,847 in 2016, to 81,216 in 2026, a 1.03 percent CAGR. Military operations
are projected to remain at 1,763 through 2026.
One of the reasons for a positive forecast is the introduction of a new aircraft type, very light jets, into the
GA mix. Hundreds of these airplanes are on order, with deliveries starting in 2007.
Table 2-7: Aircraft Operations Forecast – FAA TAF
YearCommercial GAMilitary Total
Historic
1997 28,25681,7222,665112,643
1998 28,36178,0521,995108,408
1999 29,37982,0171,944113,340
32,60275,6322,263110,497
2000
2001 30,83670,1382,445103,419
2002 24,50068,62099394,113
2003 26,37363,34098990,702
2004 28,16662,6261,00191,793
2005 26,22561,0961,70489,025
2006 24,77766,1851,81792,779
Projection
2011 25,73169,7901,76397,284
2016 26,96173,8471,763102,571
2026 29,65381,2161,763112,632
CAGR 1997-2006 -1.45%-2.32%-4.17%-2.13%
CAGR 2006-2026 0.90%1.03%N/A0.97%
Source: FAA
3.3 Aircraft Operations Forecast – Alternative Methodology: Aircraft Fleet
This section presents an alternative methodology for projecting commercial aircraft operations at EUG,
and blends that number with the TAF numbers for GA and military components. Under this methodology,
the projected number of commercial aircraft operations is estimated by taking the projected enplanement
numbers, and dividing by a factor that incorporates the average number of seats per airplane and the
2-9
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
load factor. This calculation gives us the number of commercial departures, which we then double to
account for an equal number of arrivals.
The major assumptions related to the fleet (average seats) include data showing that the airlines
operating at EUG (namely SkyWest and Horizon Air) are retiring the older, smaller turboprop aircraft, in
favor of newer, larger regional prop and jet aircraft.
Aircraft such as the Embraer 120 (30 seats) and the Dash 8-200 series (37 seats) will be replaced by
regional jets in the 50-, 70-, and 90-seat ranges, as well as the Dash 8-Q400 (a 70-seat turboprop). Fleet
changes by regional/commuter carriers
Table 2-8:
are anticipated to increase the average
Operations Forecast – Fleet Size Assumptions
number of seats per departure at the
YearSeats Per Aircraft
Airport. The assumptions made in
Projection
507090TotalAverage
determining the average number of
2011 40% 40% 20% 100% 66
seats per departure are shown in
2016 35% 45% 20% 100% 67
Table 2-8
, incorporating various
2026 25% 50% 25% 100% 70
percentages of 50-, 70-, and 90-seat
Source: Mead & Hunt
aircraft based on airline orders for such
aircraft, and the anticipated utilization of them in the EUG market. These ranges represent the various
general sizes of regional aircraft, although some specific models vary from the actual numbers used in
our assumptions.
Table 2-9
Historic load factors at the Airport for the past two years are shown in . Load factors have
climbed to this level of just under 80%, and it is estimated that the airlines may squeeze a bit more
capacity out of their seats (thus slightly higher load factors are assumed for the projection years).
Historical and projected data for commercial aircraft operations at EUG are presented in Table 2-9. As
shown in Table 2-9, based on the projected enplanements, average seats per departure, and load factor,
scheduled passenger departures are expected to decrease from 12,389 in 2006 to 9,960 in 2026. Total
operations (double the departures number) are projected to decrease from 24,777 in 2006 to 19,920 in
2026.
2-10
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
Table 2-9:
Operations Forecast – Alternative Methodology: Aircraft Fleet
Average
SeatsLoad
YearEnplanements Departures Operations
PerFactor
Aircraft
Historic
1997 383,890 14,128 28,256
1998 370,850 14,181 28,361
1999 355,992 14,690 29,379
2000 376,522 16,301 32,602
2001 364,049 15,418 30,836
2002 312,735 12,250 24,500
2003 301,339 13,187 26,373
2004 347,672 14,083 28,166
2005 360,049 36 77% 13,113 26,225
2006 360,258 37 79% 12,389 24,777
Projection
2011 412,873 66 70% 8,937 17,874
2016 445,593 67 75% 8,868 17,736
2026 557,736 70 80% 9,960 19,920
CAGR
1997 – 2006 -0.70% -1.45%
CAGR
2006 – 2006 2.21%-1.09%
Sources: Mead & Hunt, USDOT T-100 data
3.4 Operations Forecast – Method Comparison and Preference
Table 2-10
presents a comparison of operations forecasts for the two methodologies. As shown, the TAF
is more aggressive, with operations projected to increase from 92,779 in 2006 to 112,632 in 2026.
Operations under the Alternative Methodology are projected to increase from 92,779 in 2006 to 102,179
in 2026. The alternative methodology is recommended since it incorporates some additional data into the
analysis that relates to aircraft size changes that are highly probable. The preferred forecast assumes
that, with this assumption more people will be moved on fewer flights.
2-11
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
Table 2-10: Comparison of Operations Forecasts
Actual Projected
2006201120162026
TAF
Commercial 24,777 24,798 25,73129,653
GA 66,185 66,393 69,79081,216
Military 1,817 1,763 1,7631,763
Total 92,779 92,954 97,284112,632
Alternative Methodology
Commercial 24,777 15,640 16,42219,200
GA 66,185 66,393 69,79081,216
Military 1,817 1,763 1,763 1,763
Total 92,779 83,796 87,975 102,179
Alt.
Method/TAF
(% Difference)
-10% -10%-9%
NA
Sources: FAA, Mead & Hunt
Table 2-11 Graph 2-2
and show total operations using the preferred methods.
Table 2-11: Operations Forecast – Preferred
YearCommercial GAMilitary Total
Historic
1997 28,256 81,7222,665112,643
1998 28,361 78,0521,995108,408
1999 29,379 82,0171,944113,340
2000 32,602 75,6322,263110,497
2001 30,836 70,1382,445103,419
2002 24,500 68,62099394,113
2003 26,373 63,34098990,702
2004 28,166 62,6261,00191,793
2005 26,225 61,0961,70489,025
2006 24,777 66,1851,81792,779
Projection
2011 17,874 66,3931,76386,030
2016 17,736 69,7901,76389,289
2026 19,920 81,2161,763102,899
CAGR 1997-2006 -1.45% -2.32%-4.17%-2.13%
CAGR 2006-2026 -1.09% 1.03%N/A0.52%
Source: Mead & Hunt
2-12
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
Graph 2-2: Operations Forecast – Preferred
Historic Forecast
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Year
Historic-TotalHistoric-G/AHistoric-Commercial
Historic-MilitaryForecast-TAF-G/AForecast-TAF-Military
Forecast-Modified TAF-CommercialForecast-Total
Source: Mead & Hunt
4. Based Aircraft
Based aircraft are aircraft originating and terminating round-trip travel at EUG and stored at EUG on a
semi-permanent basis. Most based aircraft are registered locally, and most are stored in hangars, with
some on ramps. Based aircraft include GA aircraft and charter commercial passenger service aircraft.
Scheduled commercial service passenger aircraft and cargo aircraft are not based at EUG, even though
they may be serviced and stored overnight at the Airport. There are no military aircraft based at EUG.
Aircraft at EUG for long-term service and maintenance are not considered based, nor are aircraft located
at EUG but not current for operation.
Observed based aircraft data is provided by Airport management, and reflected on the FAA’s 5010 form,
which the FAA maintains as it provides annual inspection of the airport, documenting airfield facilities and
features in the 5010. Having actual historical data instead of estimates instills confidence in using the
base data for forecasting.
Based aircraft presented in this Master Plan Update are categorized as single-engine piston (single),
multi-engine piston (multi), turbine engine (jet), and helicopter (rotor), as these types of aircraft compose
the primary mix of aircraft based at EUG. Other based aircraft, not in these categories, account for 2
percent of based aircraft, and that rate will be maintained for forecasting.
2-13
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
4.1 Based Aircraft History
Table 2-12:
There were 169 based aircraft in 1997, and documents show the total
Based Aircraft History
Table
has risen to 220 (Year 2000), and has fallen to 178 (Year 2006).
Based
Year
2-12
shows based aircraft history.
Aircraft
1997 169
1998 169
4.2 Based Aircraft Forecast – FAA TAF
1999 220
The FAA monitors and projects activity levels at the nation’s airports, and
2000 220
makes this data available in the TAF. The FAA TAF projects EUG based
2001 176
aircraft to increase from 178 in 2006, to 205 in 2011, to 209 in 2016, and
2002 173
Table 2-13
to 220 in 2026, representing a 1.06 percent CAGR. shows
2003 171
FAA TAF based aircraft.
2004 183
2005 198
Table 2-13:
2006 178
Based Aircraft Forecast – FAA TAF
CAGR
YearSingleJetMultiRotorOtherTotal
1997-2006 0.58%
Historic
Source: Airport management
1997 141 4 22 20169
records
1998 141 4 22 20169
1999 155 19 32 140220
2000 155 19 32 140220
2001 133 13 20 100176
2002 131 9 20 130173
2003 130 8 20 130171
2004 139 21 15 71183
2005 145 28 14 74198
2006 138 17 11 93178
Projection
2011 150 29 14 84205
2016 153 29 14 94209
2026 159 30 14 134220
CAGR
-0.24% 17.44% -7.41% 18.19%N/A0.58%
1997-2006
CAGR
0.71% 2.88% 1.21% 1.86%1.45%1.06%
2006-2026
Source: FAA
2-14
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
4.3
Based Aircraft Forecast – Socioeconomic Methodology
Socioeconomic forecasting considers aspects of EUG’s service market, such as population, employment
and income, and projects EUG activity as a ratio of one of these socioeconomic variables. For this Master
Plan Update, the ratio is developed by comparing historic activity to historic population. Socioeconomic
projections data was developed independent of this planning process by Woods & Poole, a census
information company.
Socioeconomic forecasting projects EUG based aircraft to increase from 178 in 2006, to 201 in 2011, to
211 in 2016, and to 232 to 2026, representing a 1.32 percent CAGR. EUG historical based aircraft rose
and fell. However, EUG’s service market historic population increases steadily. This difference between
the data sets may not provide the strongest correlation, but the method does provide an appropriate
Table 2-14
forecast. shows projected based aircraft using the socioeconomic methodology.
Table 2-14: Based Aircraft Forecast – Socioeconomic
Methodology
Based
Based
YearPopulationAircraft
Aircraft
Per Capita
Historic
1997 169 597,7210.000283
1998 169 601,9540.000281
1999 220 603,8580.000364
2000 220 605,0900.000364
2001 176 606,4260.000290
2002 173 612,1430.000283
2003 171 617,6630.000277
2004 183 620,2580.000295
2005 198 626,9360.000316
2006 178 634,4210.000281
Projection
2011 201 664,4000.000303
2016 211 695,9140.000303
2026 232 763,5530.000303
CAGR 1997-2006 0.58%
CAGR 2006-2026 1.32%
Source: Mead & Hunt
2-15
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
4.4 Based Aircraft Forecast – Method Comparison and Preference
Table2-15 Graph 2-3
and show a comparison of based aircraft methodologies. As shown, the TAF
indicates growth in based aircraft from 178 in 2006 to 220 in 2026, while the socioeconomic method
produces a forecast indicating growth in based aircraft from 178 in 2006 to 232 in 2026. The preferred
methodology is the FAA Terminal Area Forecast. We believe the TAF for based aircraft is a good
reflection of national trends for general aviation growth. The socioeconomic methodology produces a
slightly higher based aircraft projection, but we are less confident in population growth being a strong
indication of buying airplanes.
Table 2-15:
Based Aircraft Forecast – Comparison
Socioeconomic
FAA TAF
Socio/TAF
Historic (Preferred)
Forecast (% Difference)
Year
Historic
1997 169
1998 169
1999 220
2000 220
2001 176
2002 173
2003 171
2004 183
2005 198
2006 178
Projection
2011 205 201-2%
2016 209 2111%
2026 220 2325%
Source: Mead & Hunt
2-16
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
Graph 2-3: Based Aircraft Forecast – Comparison
Historic Forecast
Sources: Airport management records, Mead & Hunt, FAA
4.5 Critical Aircraft
The critical, or design aircraft, is defined as the most demanding aircraft that operates at an airport on a
regular basis. Typically, an aircraft must conduct 500 or more annual operations to be considered the
critical aircraft. The design aircraft for EUG through the 20-year planning period is the Boeing 737-500.
This is the same aircraft stated in the current Master Plan Update (and on the approved ALP) as the
design aircraft. Since the airfield has been built to this design standard, it is considered logical to not
change it at this time.
The FAA organizes airport design standards by Airport Reference Code (ARC) and the ARC is defined
based on the airport’s design aircraft. The ARC incorporates characteristics of the most demanding
aircraft that operates at an airport on a regular basis and includes the following two components: Aircraft
Approach Category and Airplane Design Group. The aircraft approach category, denoted by letter,
represents the operational approach speed characteristics of the critical/design aircraft. The airplane
design group, denoted by Roman numeral, is based on the wingspan and relates to the physical
characteristics of the critical/design aircraft. The ARC for the Boeing 737-500, EUG’s critical aircraft, is C-
III, based on an approach speed of 140 knots and a wingspan of 94.8 feet.
2-17
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
5. Air Cargo
Air cargo includes goods and products being transported by aircraft through EUG. Air cargo is carried
both by commercial passenger service carriers (in non-passenger cabin areas of aircraft) and by
commercial air cargo service carriers (which serve no passengers).
Air cargo can be categorized into mail and freight. Mail cargo is transported by arrangement with the
commercial carrier and the United States Postal Service. Freight cargo is non-mail cargo. Mail cargo
passing though EUG has declined from 43 percent of total cargo in 1998, to no mail cargo in 2006. With
the additional security screening criteria established by the Department of Homeland Security over the
past several years, many air carriers have slowed or ceased moving air mail. As such, mail cargo will not
be evaluated.
Historical data is provided to airport management by commercial carriers, who maintain data as they
transport cargo at EUG. The following section presents historical data on air cargo, and forecasts using
socioeconomic data and industry outlook information from The Boeing Company.
5.1 Air Cargo History
Table 2-16: Air Cargo History
Table 2-16
presents historical air cargo data. As shown, there
Enplaned Cargo
were 2,974,533 lbs. of cargo in 1997, rising to a high of
Year
(lbs.)
3,974,273 lbs. in 2000, and falling to a low of 2,091,057 lbs. in
1997 2,974,533
2002, and totaling 2,096,778 lbs. in 2006. Overall, air cargo has
1998 3,556,740
declined over the past 10 years.
1999 3,974,273
2000 3,710,254
EUG’s decrease in enplaned freight can be attributed in part to
2001 2,231,811
the replacement of the large aircraft used by major and national
2002 2,091,057
commercial carriers, which previously served EUG, with the
commuter aircraft used by regional commercial carriers, which
2003 2,563,256
currently serve EUG. Commuter aircraft have less room for
2004 2,239,204
cargo than large aircraft, leading to decreasing enplaned cargo
2005 2,385,207
at EUG.
2006 2,096,778
CAGR 1997-2006 -3.81%
5.2 Air Cargo Forecast – Boeing Trends
Source: Airport management records
The Boeing Company’s World Air Cargo Forecast publication is a source of air cargo evaluation and
projection, giving trends that can be applied to EUG to provide a forecast of local cargo activity.
Boeing shows that nationwide, air cargo experienced a downturn in 2001, recovered from 2002 to 2004,
and declined in 2005 to below Year 2000 levels. Express cargo accounted for 60 percent of activity,
scheduled freight 20 percent, scheduled mail 15 percent, and charter 5 percent. Air cargo is forecasted
by Boeing to increase 3.9% from 2006 through 2015, and 3.8 percent from 2006 through 2025.
2-18
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
Table 2-17
shows projections of cargo using the growth
Table 2-17:
rates estimated by The Boeing Company. Applying these
Air Cargo Forecast – Boeing Trends
growth rates to EUG, this projects an increase from
Enplaned
Annual
2,096,778 lbs. in 2006 to 2,538,810 lbs. in 2011, to
YearCargo
Change
3,068,410 lbs. in 2016, and to 4,416,957 lbs. in 2026,
(lbs.)
representing a 3.80 percent CAGR.
Historic
1997 2,974,533
5.3 Air Cargo Forecast – Socioeconomic
1998 3,556,740 19.6%
Methodology
1999 3,974,273 11.7%
2000 3,710,254 -6.6%
Projections of air cargo demand, using a socioeconomic
2001 2,231,811 -39.8%
methodology, considers aspects of the Eugene service
2002 2,091,057 -6.3%
market, such as population, employment and income, and
2003 2,563,256 22.6%
projects air cargo activity as a ratio of one of these
2004 2,239,204 -12.6%
socioeconomic variables. For this Master Plan Update, the
2005 2,385,207 6.5%
ratio is developed by comparing historic activity to historic
2006 2,096,778 -12.1%
population. Socioeconomic projections data was developed
Projection
independent of this planning process by Woods & Poole, a
2011 2,538,810 3.9%
census information company.
2016 3,068,410 3.7%
2026 4,416,957 3.7%
Table 2-18
presents projections of air cargo activity using
the socioeconomic methodology. Under this methodology,
CAGR
air cargo is projected to increase, from 2,096,778 lbs. in -3.81%
1997-2006
2006 to 3,027,282 lbs. in 2011, to 3,170,874 lbs. in 2016,
CAGR
and to 3,479,066 lbs. in 2026, representing a 2.56 percent
2006-2026 3.80%
CAGR.
Sources: The Boeing Company, Mead & Hunt
2-19
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
Table 2-18: Air Cargo Forecast – Socioeconomic
EnplanedPer
YearPopulation
Cargo (lbs.) Capita
Historic
1997 2,974,533 597,7214.98
1998 3,556,740 601,9545.91
1999 3,974,273 603,8586.58
2000 3,710,254 605,0906.13
2001 2,231,811 606,4263.68
2002 2,091,057 612,1433.42
2003 2,563,256 617,6634.15
2004 2,239,204 620,2583.61
2005 2,385,207 626,9363.80
2006 2,096,778 634,4213.31
Projection
2011 3,027,282 664,4004.56
2016 3,170,874 695,9144.56
2026 3,479,066 763,5534.56
CAGR 1997-2006 -3.81%
CAGR 2006-2026 2.56%
Source: Mead & Hunt
Table 2-19: Air Cargo Forecast – Comparison
Socio-
5.4 Air Cargo Forecast – Method
YearHistoricBoeing economic
Comparison and Preference
Historic
1997 2,974,533
1998 3,556,740
Table 2-19 Graph 2-4
and present a comparison of
1999 3,974,273
projected air cargo activity based on the two different
2000 3,710,254
methodologies.
2001 2,231,811
2002 2,091,057
The Boeing method gives the preferred forecast.
2003 2,563,256
Boeing’s information is considered extensive and well-
2004 2,239,204
based, and is generally accepted by the aviation industry.
2005 2,385,207
Although higher than the socioeconomic forecast, the
2006 2,096,778
Boeing air cargo projections are in line with what is
Projection
expected at EUG.This is further justified by improvements
20112,538,8103,027,282
being made at the Airport to support additional air cargo
20163,068,4103,170,874
activities more efficiently.
20264,416,9573,479,066
CAGR
1997-2006-3.81%
CAGR
2006-2026 3.80% 2.56%
Sources: The Boeing Company, Mead & Hunt
2-20
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
Graph 2-4: Air Cargo Forecast – Comparison
Historic Forecast
Sources: Airport management records, The Boeing Company, Mead & Hunt
Improvements to EUG’s air cargo facility are underway, including a new structure, expanded ramp, and
eased ground access to aircraft. This will consolidate air cargo from three different sites around the
airfield into one centralized location. This will also accommodate an increased number of aircraft, and
increased size of aircraft. Future limitations on EUG’s cargo activity will likely be based on factors other
than the cargo facility. It is expected that this enhancement of air cargo handling and processing will
attract air cargo operations previously served by other nearby airports. It is also expected that this
facility’s modernization and efficiency will encourage those using other methods of transportation, such as
road and rail, to move local cargo by air at EUG. These factors support a more aggressive forecast.
6. Peak Aviation Demand Characteristics
When projecting future activity levels at an airport, it is also important to identify and project peak period
activity levels. These projections are important for various facility planning purposes. Since EUG, similar
to many commercial service airports, must be designed to accommodate peak demand in some
categories, these projections are important to subsequent facility planning tasks. Peaking characteristics
are developed for passenger enplanements and aircraft operations using the following methodologies:
• Monthly enplanement and operations data, supplied by the Airport’s Air Traffic Control Tower, are
analyzed to determine peak month percentages relative to the year’s total activity.
2-21
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
• The analysis indicated that the peak month for passenger enplanements, historically August, consists
of 31 days. The various components of Airport operations have historically peaked in different months
during the year, generally ranging from April to November. For planning purposes, it is assumed that
the peak month for Airport operations also consists of 31 days. To derive peak month average day
(PMAD) estimates for the various demand components at the Airport, peak month estimates are,
therefore, divided by 31.
• Peak hour percentages are then applied to projected PMAD estimates to derive peak hour
operational levels. The following section documents peak hour demand factors as they relate to
passenger enplanements and aircraft operations at EUG.
Table 2-20
Peak aviation demand numbers are presented in .
Table 2-20. Peak Aviation Demand Characteristics
Passenger Aircraft Operations
Peak Factor
Enplanement
CommercialGAMilitaryTotal
s
2006Annual360,25824,77766,1851,81792,779
ActualPeak Month 37,9222,4786,6191829,278
Peak Month Avg. Day 1,223802146299
Peak Hour 3062053175
2011 Annual 412,87317,87466,3931,76383,796
Peak Month 43,4601,7876,6391761,862
Peak Month Avg. Day 1,40258214662
Peak Hour 3501454116
2016 Annual 445,59317,73669,7901,76387,975
Peak Month 46,9051,7746,9791761,955
Peak Month Avg. Day 1,51357225665
Peak Hour 3781456116
2026 Annual 557,73619,92081,2161,763102,179
Peak Month 58,7091,9928,1221762,271
Peak Month Avg. Day 1,89464262676
Peak Hour 4731665119
Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc. - 2007
2-22
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
FORECASTS OF AVIATION DEMAND CHAPTER 2
7. Projection Summary
Table 2-21
presents a summary of aviation demand projections for EUG. Included in this projection
summary are passenger enplanements, aircraft operations, based aircraft, and air cargo.
Table 2-21:
Summary of Aviation Demand Forecasts
Passenger Aircraft Based Air Cargo
Year
EnplanementsOperationsAircraft(lbs)
2006 (actual) 360,258 92,779 1782,096,778
2011 412,873 83,796 205 2,538,810
2016 445,593 87,975 209 3,068,410
2026 557,736 102,179 220 4,416,957
CAGR 2006-
2.21% 0.52% 1.1% 3.8%
2026
Note: CAGR = Compounded annual growth rate
Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc.
2-23
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
3
3
Chapter
Demand/Capacity Analysis and
Determination of Facility Requirements
This chapter of the Eugene Airport
Master Plan Update identifies airside and
landside facility requirements. These
requirements are identified by comparing
the Airport’s capacity or its ability to
accommodate demand, to the Airport’s
demand levels and are analyzed in the
following sections.
Airfield Demand/Capacity Analysis
Airfield Facility Requirements
Passenger Terminal Facility Requirements
Air Cargo Facility Requirements
General Aviation Facility Requirements
Fixed Base Operator (FBO) and Tenant Facility Requirements
Support Facility Requirements
Surface Transportation and Auto Parking Requirements
Utilities
In certain functional/analytical areas, where the results from the 2000 Master Plan Update (2000 MPU)
are still relevant, reference is made to that planning document reflecting such.
1. Airfield Demand/Capacity Analysis
Airfield capacity is defined as the maximum number of aircraft operations that an airfield configuration can
accommodate during a specified interval of time, when there is a continuous demand for service (i.e., an
aircraft is always waiting to depart or land). This definition is referred to as the ultimate capacity or the
maximum throughput rate. The methodology used in this Master Plan Update focuses on annual service
volume (ASV), which is used by the FAA as a quantifiable measure of operating capacity. The calculation
and analysis of ASV is an important tool in the short- and long- range planning process at the Airport.
The recent reconfiguration of the airfield, from one with two runways that crossed each other, to a parallel
configuration, results in a significant increase in annual capacity. According to FAA Advisory Circular
150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay, a parallel runway system with spacing of 4,300 feet between
1
Based on projected aircraft
runways has a capacity of approximately 320,000 annual aircraft operations.
operations of approximately 103,000 in 2026, approximately one-third of the airfields capacity is expected
1
This number assumes a mix of Class C & D aircraft of between 21 and 50 percent of operations.
3-1
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
to be used in the long-term. Average aircraft delay for long-range planning is negligible – well under one
minute. Based on this analysis, the airfield has adequate capacity to handle operations on a long-term
basis.
Additional airfield planning, however, will explore the value of possibly adding acute-angle exit taxiways to
the runway/taxiway system as more of a safety measure (to more rapidly get airplanes off the active
runway).
2. Airfield Facility Requirements
Airfield facility requirements were developed for each of the Airport’s following functional areas:
Airfield Layout
Design Standards
Runway Length
Runway Width
Pavement Strength
Taxiway System
Airfield Safety Areas
FAR Part 77 Surfaces
Navigational Aids
2.1 Airfield Layout
Since the 2000 MPU, the airfield has been reconfigured to a parallel runway system, giving EUG the
airfield capacity to accommodate projected aircraft operational demand through 2026.
2.2 Design Standards
Important factors in the design and planning of an airport include the role of the airport, as well as the
operating requirements of the critical aircraft that use that facility. The FAA provides guidance for
planning and design through FAA Advisory Circulars, which promote safety, economy, efficiency, and
longevity of airport facilities.
For planning and design purposes, it is necessary to establish design standards applicable to operations
and development at EUG. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, gives direction on
determining the Airport Reference Code (ARC). The ARC is a coding system used to relate airport
design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of aircraft intended to operate at the airport.
The ARC has two components. The first component, depicted by a letter, represents the aircraft
approach category, as defined by the aircraft approach speed. The second component, depicted by a
Roman numeral, represents the airplane design group, as defined by the aircraft wingspan and tail height.
Generally, aircraft approach speed relates primarily to runways and related facilities, while aircraft
wingspan and tail height relate primarily to separation criteria involving runway, taxiways, and structures.
3-2
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
The Design Aircraft for Eugene is the Boeing 737-300, which has an ARC of C-III. Although currently not
as common at EUG as in the past, the Boeing 737 has long been used as the critical design aircraft for
EUG. The current air carriers at EUG use smaller regional jet aircraft. However, as the 737 remains a
popular and abundant commercial aircraft in the United States, and as it has been the standard for so
many of the airfield improvements, the 737 will continue to be used as the critical design aircraft at EUG.
Lowering the design standards to satisfy only the current smaller aircraft would significantly limit EUG’s
ability to accommodate a nationally common commercial service aircraft.
As the ARC for EUG is C-III, other aircraft with an ARC of C-III operate at the airfield. The commercial
passenger aircraft operating at EUG include the Q200 (C-III), Q400 (C-III), CRJ-200 (C-II), CRJ-700 (C-
II), and EMB120 (B-II). Although EUG’s ARC is C-III, the larger Boeing 757, having an ARC of C-IV, can
(and does) operate at EUG on an infrequent basis.
2.3 Runway Length
Runway length requirements are determined by analyzing the needs of the airport’s most demanding
(current or projected) aircraft in the operational fleet. The recommended length for the primary runway is
determined by considering a specific airplane that is forecast to use the runway on a regular basis or by
considering a family of aircraft having similar performance characteristics. FAA standards consider the
threshold to be at least 500 operations per year. Departures are considered in the runway length analysis
since they typically require more runway length than landings.
Runway length requirements vary among aircraft. Generally, larger aircraft with faster speeds, longer
wingspans, and greater weights require greater field lengths. Each aircraft operator and company has
additional considerations to determine required runway length, including length of haul, percent of
maximum loading, aircraft performance, pilot procedure, airport elevation, and ambient temperature. As
these factors vary among aircraft operators, general runway lengths for common passenger and cargo
Table 3-1
aircraft are presented in .
As variations on these and other aircraft exist, which require other lengths, specific aircraft operators with
specific aircraft types and requirements proposing to operate EUG should be considered individually to
determine the adequacy of EUG’s runway length.
Specific calculations for EUG’s design aircraft, Boeing 737-300, show that 8,000 feet is required for a
B737-300 operating at maximum take-off weight (see 2000 MPU for full analysis which remains relevant).
However, similar calculations show that 9,000 feet is required for a B737-400 and B737-500 aircraft at
maximum take-off weight. The length of primary Runway 16R/34L is 8,009 feet, and the length of parallel
Runway 16L/34R is 6,000 feet. The number of (current and projected) aircraft needing longer than 8,009
feet is well under the required 500 operations per year. However, this should be regularly re-evaluated to
monitor aircraft changes and potential need.
3-3
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Table 3-1: Runway Length Data
Take-off Field Landing Field Airport Reference
Aircraft
LengthLengthCode (ARC)
Airbus A300-600
7,600
4,700
C-IV
Airbus A310-300
7,400
4,950
D-IV
Airbus A319
4,800
4,700
C-III
Airbus A320
5,900
4,800
C-III
Airbus A321
7,100
5,200
C-III
Airbus A330-300
8,700
5,873
D-IV
Boeing 727
10,000
5,300
C-III
Boeing 737-300
6,500
4,580
C-III
Boeing 737-400
7,350
4,880
C-III
Boeing 737-500
5,880
4,450
C-III
Boeing 737-600
5,900
4,400
C-III
Boeing 737-700
5,500
4,700
C-III
Boeing 737-800
7,350
5,450
C-III
Boeing 737-900
7,900
5,450
C-III
Boeing 747-400
9,950
7,150
D-V
Boeing 757-200
7,700
5,100
C-IV
Boeing 757-300
8,650
5,750
C-IV
Boeing 767-300
7,550
5,200
C-IV
Boeing 767-400
10,850
6,250
C-IV
Boeing 777-200
8,450
5,100
D-V
Boeing DC-9-40
7,410
4,070
C-III
Boeing DC-9-50
8,300
4,230
C-III
Boeing DC-10-15
7,270
5,940
D-IV
Boeing DC-10-30
10,340
5,970
D-IV
Boeing MD-81
6,150
5,080
C-III
Boeing MD-82
7,550
5,300
C-III
Boeing MD-83
8,100
5,800
C-III
Boeing MD-87
6,100
5,080
C-III
Boeing MD-88
6,650
5,400
C-III
Boeing MD-90-30
6,500
4,565
C-III
Bombardier CRJ200
6,290
4,850
C-II
Bombardier CRJ700
6,072
5,119
C-II
Bombardier CRJ705
6,379
5,321
C-II
Bombardier CRJ900
6,379
5,321
C-II
Bombardier Q200
3,280
2,560
C-III
Bombardier Q300
3,870
3,415
C-III
Bombardier Q400
4,265
4,221
C-III
Embraer EMB120
5,118
4,528
B-II
Embraer ERJ135
5,770
4,460
C-II
Embraer ERJ140
6,070
4,530
C-II
Embraer ERJ145
7,450
4,590
C-II
Embraer ERJ170
5,220
4,180
C-III
Embraer ERJ175
5,690
4,300
C-III
Embraer ERJ190
6,913
4,567
C-III
Embraer ERJ195
7,386
4,708
C-III
Raytheon Beech 1900
3,813
2,790
B-II
Saab 340
3,830
2,413
B-II
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology – 2006 Source Book
3-4
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Runway 16R/34L’s 8,009 feet is adequate to accommodate the aircraft types and categories of
operations projected through 2026. However, the ability to lengthen Runway 16R/34L to meet the needs
of aircraft in the projected fleet, operating at greater stage lengths, should be preserved. Accordingly, the
Airport Layout Plan represents an ultimate Runway 16R/34L length of 9,200 feet. The need to improve
runway length beyond 8,009 feet will be determined by the evolving operating fleet and passenger
markets served by the air carriers.
2.4 Runway Width
The standard runway width for Design Group III aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight greater than
150,000 lbs. is 150 ft. The 150 ft width of both Runway 16R/34L and Runway 16L/34R is adequate to
accommodate the aircraft types and categories of operations projected through 2026.
2.5 Runway Pavement Strength
Runway pavement strength at Eugene Airport is defined for single wheel, dual-wheel, and dual tandem
aircraft wheel gear configurations. An aircraft’s wheel gear configuration dictates how the aircraft’s weight
is distributed to the pavement, and determines pavement response to loading. The factors of gear
configuration, tire contact areas, and tire pressure relate pavement strength to aircraft maximum takeoff
weight. The March 15, 2007 FAA Airport/Facility Directory recurring publication lists EUG’s runway
weight bearing capacity as:
Weight bearing capacity
Gear Configuration Runway 16R/34L Runway 16L/34R
Single Wheel (S)75,000105,000
Dual Wheel (D)200,000175,000
Dual Tandem (DT)400,000240,000
The weight bearing capacity of both Runway 16R/34L and Runway 16L/34R is adequate to accommodate
the aircraft types and categories of operations projected through 2026.
2.6 Taxiway System
The standard taxiway width for Design Group III aircraft is 50 ft. Most taxiways at EUG are 75 ft, which
allows them to handle B757 charter operations and other larger aircraft that occasionally use the Airport.
Access taxiways with widths less than 50 ft exist, but they serve areas for smaller aircraft. As taxiways
are improved and constructed, they should have the width of the taxiways to which they connect, and
should also consider the size of aircraft intended to use the taxiway.
2.7 Design Surfaces
The FAA defines design surfaces, each having specific applicability, dimensions standards and use
restrictions, which evolve as the FAA identifies nationwide issues with each surface. The FAA defines
these design surfaces in Advisory Circulars, primarily in AC 5300-13, Airport Design. Design surfaces
include Runway (& Taxiway) Safety Area, Runway (& Taxiway) Object Free Area, Object Free Zone,
Runway Protection Zone, and Runway End Siting Requirement Surfaces. These surfaces are identified
and evaluated on the Airport Layout Plan.
3-5
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
EUG continually works to meet the standards and maintain the requirements of these surfaces, reviewing
criteria and compliance as part of annual FAA inspections. Airport improvement projects are designed
and implemented to the most current standards.
2.8 FAR Part 77 Surfaces
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, establishes airspace
around an airport, and the standards for determining objects as hazards to air navigation, termed
“obstructions”. Potential obstructions include terrain and natural growth features, towers, structures, and
construction equipment (permanent or temporary).
Under FAR Part 77, an aeronautical study can be undertaken by the FAA to determine if an object is a
hazard to air navigation. However, there is no authorization permitting the FAA to limit object heights, or
determine which objects should be lighted or marked. In an aeronautical study determination, the FAA
acknowledges that state or local officials have control over the appropriate use of property beneath an
airport’s airspace.
Airspace around an airport is defined by several imaginary surfaces, as defined in FAR Part 77. As these
imaginary surfaces are intersecting and inter-related, the most restrictive surface controls the permissible
height of an object underneath multiple surfaces. These FAR Part 77 surfaces are identified and
evaluated on the Airport Layout Plan. There are no FAR Part 77 obstructions.
EUG continually works to meet the standards and maintain the requirements of these surfaces. Airport
improvement projects are designed and implemented to the most current standards.
2.9 Navigational Aids (NAVAIDs)
NAVAIDs provide guidance to pilots and aircraft during flight planning and operation. The type, mission,
and volume of aeronautical activity, in association with airspace, meteorological conditions, and capacity
data, determine the need and eligibility for NAVAIDs.NAVAID requirements are based on
recommendations contained in FAA Handbook 7031.2, Airway Planning Standard Number One, and FAA
Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design. Three categories of NAVAIDs are discussed in the
following sections.
Terminal Area NAVAIDs
Terminal area NAVAIDs provide control to aircraft to maintain an orderly flow of air traffic, prevent aircraft
incursion, and support maneuvering. EUG’s terminal area NAVAIDs include the Airport Traffic Control
Tower (ATCT), Cascade Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON), Cascade Air Route Traffic Control
Center (ARTCC), and Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR). These facilities are owned and operated by the
FAA, and operate in the FAA office, located near the passenger terminal. The ASR is located west of
Runway 16R/34L.
The ATCT controls aircraft on and in the vicinity of the airfield, the TRACON controls arrivals and
departures, and the ARTCC provides enroute control. Pilot communication and control is transferred
among these facilities during the different phases of flight. The ASR scans 360 degrees to identify air
3-6
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
traffic within 60 nautical miles of the Airport, to provide more precise handling of aircraft in the immediate
vicinity of EUG.
EUG also has a VHF Omni-Directional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) system. Located west
of Runway 16R/34L, the VORTAC is used by pilots accessing EUG, and by those flying over at higher
altitudes.
Other terminal area electronic NAVAIDs exist to provide instruction and weather information to pilots. The
Automated Terminal Information Service (ATIS) broadcasts verbal instruction, notice, and weather
information to pilots as they operate on the ground, taxiing between runways and terminal areas. The
weather information is provided by the Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) and Stand Alone
Weather Sensor (SAWS) system, both located along Runway 16R/34L.
Electronic Approach NAVAIDs
Electronic approach NAVAIDs assist aircraft executing an instrument approach procedure. An instrument
approach is a series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument
flight conditions from enroute or local flight to a point from which landing may be made visually.
The availability of instrument approach procedures permits aircraft landings during periods of limited
visibility. The extent to which approach minimums, in terms of ceiling and visibility, can be lowered is
dependent on instrumentation available upon which the approach procedure may be developed, and on
obstructions in the approach and/or missed approach areas. Instrument approaches can be restricted to
certain aircraft and flight crews which have been certified to conduct the procedure with appropriate
equipment.
The distinction between a precision and a non-precision approach procedure is that a precision approach
provides the pilot with electronic glide slope (descent) and distance information, while a non-precision
approach does not offer glide slope and may or may not offer distance information. Safety considerations
and an airport’s operational role determine whether the degree of approach capability.
All runway ends at EUG have at least a non-precision approach procedure. Runway 16L has a Category
I instrument landing system (ILS), providing a precision approach procedure, with the ability to land with a
decision height as low as 200 ft, and visibility not less than ½ mile. Runway 16R has a Category III-B
ILS, providing a precision approach procedure, with the ability to land with no decision height and a
runway visual range not less than 600 ft. This instrument approach capability minimizes the times that
the airport must close due to poor visibility and adverse weather conditions.
These approach procedures and instrumentation are expected to be sufficient for operations at EUG
through 2026. However, consideration should be given to implementing new technologies and procedures
as they are developed and introduced to the aviation system.
3-7
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Visual NAVAIDs
Visual NAVAIDs provide pilot guidance once the aircraft is within sight of the airport, and they aid aircraft
maneuvering on the ground. EUG’s visual NAVAIDs include:
Runway 16R
High Intensity Approach Light System w/Sequenced Flashing Lights, Category II Configuration
(ALSF2)
4-light Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI), 3° glide path
Touchdown zone lights (TDZL)
Precision marking
Runway 34L
Omni-Directional Approach Lighting System (ODALS)
4-box Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI), 3° glide path
Precision marking
Runway 16L
Medium Intensity Approach Light System w/Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR)
Glideslope, 3° glide path
4-light PAPI, 3° glide path
Precision marking
Runway 34R
Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)
4-light PAPI, 3° glide path
Precision marking
Runway 16R-34L
Centerline lights (CL)
High Intensity Runway Lighting (HIRL)
Medium Intensity Taxiway Lights (MITL)
Runway Visible Range (RVR) - 3
Runway 16L-34R
HIRL
MITL
Airport
Rotating Beacon
Taxiway Centerline Reflectors
Lighted wind indicators
Segmented circle
Once the VASI on Runway End 34L has reached its economical and functional life, it should be replaced
with a PAPI, as is a nationwide FAA trend.
3-8
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) is a new technology involving tranceiving of
navigational data signals among aircraft, satellite, and ground-based systems. This technology is being
implemented in the Eugene area, and is expected to significantly enhance aircraft navigation.
These navigational aids are expected to be sufficient for all-weather operations at EUG through 2026. As
future flight technologies and equipment are developed and implemented, and traditional navigational
aids are phased out of service, EUG should make the appropriate airfield and airspace upgrades to
accommodate the latest flight procedures, and provide increased and more efficient access and service
to airport users.
3. Passenger Terminal Facility Requirements
The 2000 MPU included a detailed space program effort for the passenger terminal building and it was
decided to not redo that in this plan. Within the context of this Master Plan Update, passenger terminal
facility requirements are addressed to include the following:
Long-term terminal building expansion
Near-term terminal building improvements
Baggage security screening improvements
3.1 Long-Term Terminal Building Expansion
Long-term expansion of the passenger terminal building (on both the north and south ends of the
terminal, as well as the arms of the concourse) is anticipated to follow patterns established in the 2000
MPU.
3.2 Near-Term Terminal Building Improvements
There are several enhancements to the passenger terminal building that would enhance the operational
efficiency of the Airport and add needed facilities. Airport Administration desires to be located within the
terminal building for customer service and other reasons related to efficiency. It would also make sense
for TSA to relocate from its temporary facilities into the terminal building. And finally, an additional bag
claim device should be added since there is currently only one and the airport has no backup. Each of
these items could be easily accommodated by adding a southern extension to the terminal building, south
of the current bag claim area. It may make sense for a multi-story addition to be placed in this area to
accommodate all of these functions, and possibly include some space for public meeting rooms and for
leasing to FAA or other tenants. Finally, space should be set aside for someday creating an emergency
response center. Sizing and options for providing these facilities will be documented in Chapter Four,
Alternative Plan Concepts.
3.3 Baggage Security Screening Improvements
This Master Plan Update project includes a task to develop alternative plan concepts for relocating the
TSA baggage screening equipment and operations to accommodate a new in-line system using CT-80
3-9
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
scanning machines. Alternatives for providing this will be presented in Chapter Four, Alternative Plan
Concepts.
4. Air Cargo Facility Requirements
Improvements to EUG’s air cargo facility are underway, including a new structure, expanded ramp, and
eased ground access to aircraft. This will consolidate air cargo from three different sites around the
airfield into one location, accommodate an increased number and size of aircraft, and provide a location
for charter aircraft boarding.
The new facility is located southeast of Runway End 34L, near the primary runway, and away from other
airport operations - currently the location of an existing cargo apron. The cargo apron is being expanded
from 13,067 sq yd, accommodating seven smaller aircraft, to 26,133 sq yd, accommodating seven larger
aircraft. The apron will accommodate aircraft up to a Boeing 757.
The cargo operations are being centralized from around the airfield into a new building. The building will
be home to cargo air carriers (UPS, FedEx, and DHL), passenger carriers with cargo (Alaska/Horizon),
Lawrence Air Service FBO, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) cargo screening, which
processes cargo before it is loaded onto aircraft. The 11,600 sq ft building has landside access for trucks
and airside access for aircraft, bridged by secure bays for handling, sorting, and loading. The building is
expected to accommodate the anticipated increase in TSA’s security process and requirements, and
likely an additional cargo carrier business.
The facility will also accommodate charter passenger loading/unloading from ground transportation,
through processing, and aircraft – a service provided by Lawrence Air Service.
Ground transportation allows for circulation from Airport Road to the northern passenger area, and to the
cargo handling area. There are loading docks for eight trucks on the east, and employee parking for
approximately 20 automobiles on the north.
Future limitations on EUG’s cargo activity will likely be by factors other than the cargo facility. It is
expected that this enhancement of air cargo handling and processing will attract air cargo operations
previously served by other nearby airports. It is also expected that this facility’s modernization and
efficiency will encourage those using other methods of transportation, such as road and rail, to move local
cargo by air at EUG.
The site and apron can accommodate an expansion to this building, automobile parking, and truck
loading, and also additional buildings. Consideration should be given to development of this area for
future cargo and charter operations. This site is expected to accommodate cargo operations thru 2026.
3-10
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
5. General Aviation Facility Requirements
General aviation facility requirements have been developed for the following functional areas:
Based Aircraft Storage
Transient Aircraft
General Aviation Automobile Parking
5.1 Based Aircraft Storage
Storage needs for general aviation aircraft typically depend on local weather conditions and the size and
sophistication of the based aircraft fleet. Higher valued aircraft are more likely to be stored in larger, more
secure conventional (box) hangars, and lower valued aircraft likely stored in smaller T-hangars, or tie-
down on unsheltered ramps.
Through discussion with the Airport, FBO’s, and tenants, an inventory of aircraft storage availability and
Table 3-2
occupation was assembled, and is presented in . Inventory assumptions include: each box
holds one aircraft; box hangars are occupied.
Table 3-2. Existing Aircraft Storage (2006)
BasedTie-Down Positions Box Hangars T-Hangar Units
Location
AircraftAvailable Occupied Available Occupied Available Occupied
North Ramp 61 6 10 57
South Ramp 68 3 23 59
Lane Aviation 15 13
East Ramp 0 0 3 14
Hollis Lane Area 00 1 0
Total 178 144 22 37 37 130 119
Distribution 12% 21% 67%
Of the 178 based aircraft in 2006, 156 (88%) are stored in hangars, and 22 (12%) on the ramps. Of the
aircraft stored in hangars, 119 (76%) are stored in T-hangars, and 37 (24%) are stored in box hangars.
Total percentage of aircraft storage distribution is 12% on ramp, 21% in box hangars, and 67% in T-
hangars. Variations on this distribution applied to the forecasted number of based aircraft at EUG results
Table 3-3
in the storage requirements presented in .
Table 3-3. Aircraft Storage Requirements
Total Aircraft Storage Distribution
Year
Based Aircraft Tie-Downs Box Hangars T-Hangars
2006 178 22 37 119
2011 205 23 45 137
2016 209 23 48 138
2026 220 24 57 139
3-11
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
The existing tie-downs for 144 aircraft are sufficient to meet the expected 24 ramp-based aircraft in 2026.
As the south ramp FBO and old ATCT area is reconfigured, consideration should be given to the
abundance of existing tie-downs, and whether that is the best use of that apron. The East General
Aviation Ramp (EGAR) has no tie-downs, but does have an aircraft parking area. Although it would likely
not be required for capacity, but instead for convenience, consideration should be give to installing tie-
down parking on the EGAR. The Hollis Lane Aviation area has no tie-downs, nor parking apron, as this
area is to be developed with larger corporate aviation facilities.
The existing 37 box hangars are expected to need to be increased to 57 to accommodate based aircraft
in 2026, as anticipated aircraft trends, such as Very Light Jets (which do not fit in standard T-hangars),
are expected to drive demand. Both EGAR and Hollis Lane areas can accommodate additional box
hangars. EGAR has two box hangar sites reserved or under development by a tenant, and Hollis Lane
has one. Other sites should be considered.
The existing 130 T-hangar units are expected to need to be increased to 139 to accommodate based
aircraft in 2026. The EGAR area has sites available for T-hangars. Consideration should be given to the
appropriate size of aircraft to be housed, which will affect the size, spacing, and location of the T-hangars.
Each new development should consider the structure and ancillary facilities, including as airside/landside
access, aircraft/automobile circulation and parking, aircraft/building separation standards, airport traffic
control tower (ATCT) visibility, gates and fencing, and utility connection.
5.2 Transient Aircraft Storage
Transient aircraft are attracted to an airport by public events, tourist activities, business, and the
availability of aircraft maintenance and FBO services. Transient ramp areas are used for loading and
unloading passengers, for short-term parking utilizing the airport facilities, or for long-term parking for
visitors or aircraft maintenance.
For general aviation aircraft, transient storage is provided by aircraft tie-downs. With a 1997-2006
average of 54% itinerant general aircraft operations, averaged to give daily transient aircraft at EUG,
Table 3-4
gives anticipated future general aviation aircraft storage demand.
Table 3-4: Future Transient General Aviation Aircraft Storage Requirements
General Aviation Operations Tie-Down Positions
Year
Total ItinerantRequired Available
2006 66,185 35,740 49 122
2011 66,393 35,852 49 121
2016 69,790 37,687 52 121
2026 81,216 43,857 60 120
Source: Mead & Hunt
The available tie-downs are based on the 2006 tie-down inventory of 144, less those based aircraft using
tie-downs. Even with the assumption that 100% of transient aircraft overnight at EUG (which is not the
case), the existing tie-downs are expected to be sufficient through 2026. This does not consider
3-12
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
particular events resulting in peak transient aircraft parking. Although it would likely not be required for
capacity, but instead for convenience, consideration should be give to installing tie-down parking on the
EGAR.
Transient aircraft parking for passenger aircraft is provided at the terminal passenger gates. Transient
aircraft parking for cargo and charter aircraft is provided in front of the cargo facility. A change in
operations resulting in significant increase number or frequency of transient aircraft storage should
prompt consideration of additional storage sites and facilities.
5.3 General Aviation Automobile Parking
There are approximately 223 automobile parking spaces near general aviation and FBO hangars, to
accommodate general aviation patrons.
It is common for some general aviation patrons to park their automobiles in their aircraft hangar while
flying their aircraft, which effectively limits the demand for landside automobile parking. However, this is
not considered in the determination of general aviation parking requirements, nor is it recommended, as it
can lead to fire code issues.
The FAA recommends that one automobile parking space be provided for 400 general aviation
operations. With 66,000 GA operations in 2006, and 81,000 projected in 2026, the 223 automobile
parking spaces available for general aviation are expected to be adequate.
However, as new structures and facilities are developed, consideration should be given to the
convenience of existing parking, and whether additional parking should be provided based on issues
related to proximity.
Heavy Aircraft Parking
Much of the general aviation aircraft at EUG can be accommodated by the weight bearing capability of
the airport’s pavements. As heavier corporate and general aviation aircraft have become more common
at EUG, pavement areas have been improved. There are three areas designated to serve heavier
corporate and general aviation: one on the south ramp, near Flightcraft, and two on the north ramp, near
Friendly Air Service. These areas have been strengthened for heavy aircraft parking, but the connecting
pavements, for aircraft taxi and ground movement, are not necessarily able to support the increased
loading. As pavements are rehabilitated, consideration should be given to the adequacy of their weight
bearing capability. And, as heavier corporate and general aviation aircraft become more common at
EUG, consideration should be given to strengthening the taxiway, taxilane, and parking areas intended to
accommodate these aircraft.
Corporate and General Aviation Areas
Because of the difference in aircraft size, maneuvers, and movement frequency, it is common practice to
separate commercial, cargo and corporate/general aviation aircraft. EUG has several airfield locations to
serve corporate and general aviation.
3-13
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
North and South Ramps
The north and south ramps have long been home to corporate and general aviation. These areas are
substantially developed, serving FBO’s, tenants, and transient aircraft. Both ramps have box hangars, T-
hangars, heavy aircraft parking areas, aircraft parking with tie-downs, and mobile fueling service. The
south ramp is expected to become fully developed with the anticipated developments of Flightcraft and
LAA. The north ramp is expected to become fully developed with the anticipated re-development of the
old ATCT and Friendly Air Service facilities. Consideration should be given to the efficient layout of areas
of increased pavement strength for heavy aircraft, and for the continual modernization of airport facilities
in these areas.
East General Aviation Ramp
The East General Aviation Ramp (EGAR) is located on the east side of the airport, west of Taxiway B, at
the north end of Northrop Drive. EGAR is east of the Airport terminal area, with ground access by entry
from the south. Since the airfield reconfiguration with Runway 16L/34R, EGAR has become more
prominent, as it is located adjacent to the parallel runway. EGAR is home to box hangars and T-hangars,
and a self-fueling facility. EGAR has the ability to accommodate additional FBO, corporate and general
aviation development. Consideration should be given to the efficient layout for future development,
including concerns about ATCT visibility requirements.
Hollis Lane Aviation Area
The Hollis Lane Aviation Area is located on the north side of the Airport, north of Taxiway C, at the south
end of Hollis Lane. The Hollis area is not contiguous to the Airport terminal area, and landside access is
by entry from the north. Since the airfield reconfiguration with Runway 16L/34R, the Hollis area has
become more prominent, as it is located in the central airfield, and provides proximity to both runways.
The Hollis area is home to Airport maintenance and snow removal equipment storage, corporate hangars,
and an on-airport business. The Hollis area has the ability to accommodate development of airport
maintenance, corporate and general aviation, fueling and FBO service, and on-airport business facilities.
Consideration should be given to the efficient layout for future development, so that facilities requiring
airside access are appropriately sited among those with other needs.
Together, these areas have the ability to meet the corporate and general aviation demand expected at
EUG through 2026.
6. FBO and Tenant Facility Requirements
EUG depends on the FBO and tenants, and intends to accommodate them as they operate and develop.
The following were contacted regarding their expected facility requirements.
6.1 Flightcraft Services
Flightcraft Services operates on the south ramp in a 20,700 sq ft facility. Flightcraft expects to break
ground in 2007 on a 3,600 sq ft Business Aviation Terminal, connecting to the west side of their existing
hangar. In 2008, they expect to follow up with a 24,000 sq ft hangar, for larger aircraft, connecting to
3-14
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
south side of the Business Aviation Terminal. The aircraft parking ramp and tie-downs near the hangar
are owned by EUG, with fees collected by Flightcraft. Flightcraft makes extensive use of the ramp near
its hangar, to accommodate service to customers.
Flightcraft Services has installed a self-service fuelling facility on the EGAR, and indicated they would
consider developing an additional FBO facility to serve that area, as need arises.
6.2 Friendly Air Service
Friendly Air Service (FAS) operates on the north ramp in a 3,600 sq ft hangar and 2,000 sq ft office.
Aircraft parking ramp and tie-downs near the hangar are owned by EUG, with fees collected by FAS.
FAS has four aircraft, based on the tie-down parking area. As their current facility has reached the end of
its useful life, FAS plans within the next 3-4 years to abandon their current facility and relocate to a new
6,000 sq ft hangar and 2,000 sq ft office. A new larger facility will accommodate increased and larger
aircraft. FAS plans to operate out of their current facility until the new facility is operational, as to have no
disruption in operations.
As most of the facilities in the north ramp frontal area, including the old airport traffic control tower,
Friendly Air Service and Airport maintenance building, have reached the end of their useful economic life,
the Airport plans to re-develop the north ramp area to better accommodate more modern facilities.
6.3 Heli-Trade
Heli-Trade operates on the south ramp in a 6,400 sq ft hangar, with adjacent 1,200 sq ft of outdoor
storage north of their building. Heli-Trade uses ramp space in front of their building, and helipads located
in the northwest part of the airfield. Heli-Trade expects to soon add 3,600 sq ft of adjacent outdoor
storage on the north side of their building. Heli-Trade’s current location is sufficient for their operations,
but relocation to another part of the airfield would be considered if expansion could not be accommodated
at their current location, or if their current location was desired by another entity, or for another purpose.
Also, as run-ups are performed on the helipads and south ramp, another site would be needed if the
helipads went away.
6.4 Lawrence Air Service
Lawrence Air Service expects that their recent relocation from the old ATCT building, northeast of the
terminal, to the newly constructed Air Cargo facility, near Runway End 34L, will accommodate their facility
operation and service requirements for the foreseeable future.
6.5 Lane Aviation Academy
The Lane Aviation Academy (LAA) operates out of a 3-building office/classroom cluster in the north area,
and a 2-building maintenance/return-to-service cluster in the south area, both located at the west end of
Airport Road. LAA also has aviation program facilities on the main Lane Community College (LCC)
campus. However, LAA is vacating its facilities on the main LCC campus, moving the aviation program
entirely to the Airport complex, and expanding the education program. All improvements are expected to
occur without modification to the Airport’s existing security/fencing configuration.
3-15
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
The south area consists of a 21,600 sq ft hangar, and a 3,780 sq ft hangar. The smaller hangar was
recently acquired as ATCT visibility forced relocation of this building from the northern ramp area. LAA
expects to increase the smaller hangar to 11,000 sq ft within two years. To accommodate aircraft
maintenance, LAA also expects to add aircraft parking ramp and tie-downs for 12 aircraft to the south and
west of the larger hangar.
The north area consists of a western office/classroom building (owned by the City), a middle
office/classroom building, and an eastern flight technology/maintenance building, all connected by
breezeways. LAA expects to add a 1,600 sq ft single story building, north of the middle building, within
six years. The existing aircraft parking ramp and tie-downs have capacity for 15 aircraft located north of
the buildings. This is sufficient as LAA has 13 based aircraft, all stored on the ramp, and their aircraft
fleet is not expected to exceed 15.
6.6 Oregon Air and Space Museum
The Oregon Air & Space Museum (OASM) operates in the southwest airfield area, in 2 buildings totaling
25,000 sq ft of indoor storage. The facility also includes ramp space used to display aircraft, or to
accommodate aircraft temporarily displaced for indoor event. OASM’s collection has outgrown their
hangars, and more indoor storage is required so additional aircraft can continue to be acquired and
displayed.
OASM is considering a new larger 30,000 sq ft facility, housing aircraft and an educational facility, with
meeting/class rooms. It is expected that this new facility will be located in the new development areas
near Runway 16L/34R. Upon operation of the new facility, the current facility will be abandoned, making
the site/facility available for other users/uses.
7. Support Facility Requirements
Requirements of ancillary facilities needed to support Airport operations have been developed for the
following.
7.1 Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting
Requirements for aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) facilities at airports with scheduled commercial
air service are established in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 139. Airports are indexed according
to the size of aircraft. The rating at EUG is Index B, serving aircraft up to 126 feet long. This rating is
expected to meet EUG’s needs through 2026.
ARFF equipment includes an Oshkosh 1,500 gallon pumper, an Oshkosh 3,000 gallon pumper, a 500
gallon Rapid Response Vehicle (RRV), and a disaster trailer equipped with emergency rescue equipment.
This equipment meets Index B requirements.
The ARFF facility is located south of the terminal building, adjacent to the ATCT. The facility has three
bays to accommodate the ARFF equipment, with sleeping, kitchen, and lounge for facility staff. However,
the facility is not configured for gender co-habitation, and as it was operational in the early 1980’s, the
facility is at the end of its economical and functional life. ARFF vehicles must also meet specified
3-16
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
response times to runways. The current location just barely accommodates the specified response to the
newly constructed Runway 16L/34R. A new modern facility, located more central to both runways, is
needed to address the issues for both ARFF staff, and ARFF incident response time. The Airport Capital
Improvement Program (ACIP) includes a new ARFF facility for 2008, per funding availability.
Although the primary use of the facility is to serve the Airport, the facility should be constructed to allow
for possible conversion to joint use, for both Airport and community response, as the need arises. The
new location should accommodate the initial facility construction, and also allow for the facility to be
expanded.
Relocation of the ARFF facility makes available the existing facility and site for other use, to serve
airport/aircraft operations, the adjacent FAA facility, the terminal building/environment (airside or
landside), or FBO development.
7.2 Fuel Storage
EUG’s fuel storage facility (fuel farm) is located on Lockheed Drive, adjacent to the Airport Administration
building. The fuel farm has above ground tank storage for 60,000 gallons of Jet A, and 21,000 gallons of
AvGas, and also has an open bay for expanded fuel storage. The fuel is brought onto the airport by
tanker trucks traveling on surface roads, and transferred into the fuel farm. Mobile aircraft fueling
vehicles draw fuel from the fuel farm, and ferry it to the aircraft on the airfield ramps. There are four
mobile fuel vehicles, with a combined capacity of 12,500 gallons. EUG has a 100LL AvGas self-service
facility is on the EGAR, from a 6,000 gallon above-ground tank.
The Airport is considering the relocation of the fuel farm, away from the current high traffic entrance to
Airport Administration, TSA, FBO, Airport business and hangar area, to a location that can better
accommodate ground access/service by delivery trucks, and to a location that can better accommodate
expansion. This relocation would make the current site available for other users. The current location
has room for an additional 10,000 gallon tank, which would likely be needed sometime during the
planning period. If the Airport were to relocate the entire fuel farm, adequate room should be reserved to
replicate the current facility, with additional capacity beyond the one – 10,000 gallon space it currently
has.
7.3 Airport Maintenance and Snow Removal Equipment Buildings
The Airport maintenance facilities are located in the northern airfield area, north of Taxiway C, known as
the Hollis Lane area. The Airport maintenance building is 9,200 sq ft, and houses vehicles and
equipment for Airport service and landscaping. The snow removal equipment (SRE) building is 8,400 sq
ft, and stores equipment to respond to winter weather. The 3,000 sq ft airfield electrical vault is also
located in the maintenance area.
The Hollis Lane maintenance area has the space to accommodate the long-term facility development of
Airport maintenance facilities. Consideration should be given to preserving this area for long-term Airport
maintenance, and not making the area available for terminal, hangar, or Airport businesses.
3-17
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
As the ARFF operation relocates from their station south of the passenger terminal to a new mid-airfield
location, the original ARFF facility will be available for other purposes. Consideration should be given to
use of the original ARFF building for airfield maintenance. The three equipment bays would allow for
storage and maintenance of Airport vehicles and equipment, and the facility’s living quarters could serve
airport maintenance personnel during winter weather, when snow removal efforts extend to long hours.
Significant airfield maintenance facility development should occur in the Hollis Lane area, but the ARFF
station is an available resource that can be easily converted to maintenance service.
Airfield maintenance is also supported by smaller facilities located around the Airport, which will
eventually be shifted to the Hollis Lane area. The Hollis Lane airfield maintenance area and facilities are
expected to be adequate through 2027.
7.4 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Facilities
The FAA facility, located near the passenger terminal, supports air traffic control operations equipment
and personnel. Ground access to FAA is via the same route as the traveling public uses to access the
passenger terminal. FAA personnel vehicles travel along the terminal entrance road, rental car, parking
lots, terminal building, and service entrances to access the FAA facility. This introduces FAA vehicle
traffic to the curbside terminal interface area, where passenger/vehicle loading and unloading occurs,
which can become congested during peak times of activity. The FAA facility could be more conveniently
accessed if served by a more direct route. A direct route would also remove FAA facility traffic from the
curbside terminal interface area. While this is not a major issue, consideration should be given to
alternative access to the FAA facility, if it can be done economically.
The implementation of a separate roadway would likely require a reconfiguration of the FAA entrance and
parking lot, and include a barrier to separate the terminal circuit roadway from this new service road. A
direct route connecting the southwestern area of the terminal building to western Airport Road/Boeing
Drive could also serve other Airport needs. Deliveries to the terminal area requiring airside access would
follow a new direct route, avoiding the curbside terminal interface area.
FAA often receives deliverables via truck/trailer, which might be better served with a new direct access
roadway. However, consideration should be given to delivery to FAA from the airside ramp. This would
likely require modification to the fence surrounding the FAA facility, to include an additional gate.
Although this routine would likely require coordination with Airport security and operations, FAA delivery
access by airside would prevent delivery traffic from having to pass thru curbside terminal interface area
to reach the FAA facility.
The FAA’s on-airport facility is nearing capacity, and additional operational space is needed. The FAA
also operates an off-airport facility (in Eugene), which services navigational equipment and facilities
located near Eugene. The FAA may consider relocation of this facility to on-airport, to consolidate efforts.
Consideration should be given to better accommodation of FAA operations, offices, and equipment
maintenance.
3-18
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
7.5 Aircraft De-icing
Aircraft de-icing is a common procedure for maintaining safe cold-weather operations. Proper collection,
containment, processing, transfer, disposal, and recycling of the de-icing agent (liquid) are environmental
concerns, both locally and nationally. De-icing involves the application of a liquid to the aircraft’s exterior
by pressurized equipment. At EUG, de-icing is generally not performed at the gate, as de-icing methods
are such that liquid overspray is not desired on other vehicles and equipment found near the terminal, nor
on the ground (making conditions slippery and resulting in less safe worker conditions). Accordingly, a
dedicated containment system should be installed at a designated de-icing area. The proper location of
the de-icing area should consider aircraft size, ground movement, taxi routes, adjacent facilities,
containment travel route to processing, and siting requirements and location of processing and transfer
system.
8. Surface Transportation and Auto Parking Requirements
An analysis of existing surface transportation and auto parking capacity at EUG has been conducted to
determine future requirements. The analysis is comprised of the following components:
Airport Circulation
Terminal Curbfront
Auto Parking
Airport Access
8.1 Airport Circulation
The entrance to EUG, and to the Airport’s roadway system, is located at the west intersection of Airport
Road and Green Hill Road, eight miles northwest of downtown Eugene, where Airport Road from the east
connects to Green Hill Road from the south. Continuing on Airport Road becomes Douglas Drive, the
main route into the Airport. Douglas Drive becomes a one-way loop road, serving the passenger
terminal, public (and overflow) parking, rental car parking and service, ARFF facility, and FAA facility, and
connects back to itself.
Douglas Drive also connects to Lockheed Drive and Northrop Drive. Lockheed Drive diverts west from
Douglas Road to serve the fuel farm, Airport Administration, TSA, FBOs, employee parking, north
corporate and general aviation area, and on-airport businesses. Northrop Drive continues north, as an
extension of Douglas Drive, to serve the East General Aviation Ramp (EGAR), and ends at a controlled
Airport gate.
From the east intersection of Airport Road and Green Hill Road, where Green Hill Road diverts north from
Airport Road, Green Hill Road continues to the north, and connects to Hollis Lane. Hollis Lane diverts
south from Green Hill Road, to serve the Hollis Lane Aviation Area. Hollis Lane intersects with Awbrey
Lane, which spurs east and west to serve airport maintenance, corporate and general aviation, and on-
Airport businesses. Hollis Lane and the Awbrey Road spurs end at controlled Airport gates.
Airport Road diverts west from its intersection with Douglas Drive, to connect to Boeing Drive, the Air
Cargo Facility, LAA, and Grumman Drive, and ends at a controlled Airport gate. Boeing Drive diverts
3-19
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
north to serve FBOs, OASM, the south corporate and general aviation area, and on-airport businesses.
Grumman Drive diverts north from Airport Drive to serve LAA, the south corporate and general aviation
area, and on-airport businesses, and connects to Boeing Drive.
8.2 Terminal Curbfront
The curbfront provides the interface between the terminal and the circulation system. At EUG the
curbfront is a linear, single-level system with two through lanes and one curb lane where both arrival and
departure activities take place. In advance of the terminal curbfront, there is a single-lane pull-out
roadway with parking bays located between the curbfront roadway and the parking areas that is used by
taxis, hotel shuttles, and buses.
Demand for terminal curbfront is typically related to annual enplanement levels. Planning standards
indicate a ratio of approximately 1,000 annual enplanements per linear foot of curb frontage. With current
annual enplanements at approximately 360,000, this ratio indicates that the existing 525 feet of curbfront
is adequate at present. However, the annual enplanements are projected to increase to above 525,000
sometime between the 2016 and 2026, indicating a need for some type of improvement. Chapter Four,
Alternative Plan Concepts, will explore ways of assuring adequate terminal curbfront. This may include a
physical expansion of the curbfront, enforcement of dwell times, or other methods for achieving the
desired result.
8.3
Auto Parking
EUG automobile parking consists of public, rental car, and employee parking areas. Public parking
consists of short- and long-term parking, and remote overflow parking, all accessed by Douglas Drive.
Rental car parking consists of separate ready/return and storage/service lots, both accessed by Douglas
Drive. Employee parking consists of a dedicated lot for Airport employees, and a lot shared with other
Airport services, both accessed by Lockheed Drive.
Public Auto Parking
EUG has a high percentage of originating passengers, most of which use private automobiles instead of
public transportation to travel to the Airport, resulting in a demand on Airport public parking.
Public parking areas, accommodating air travel passengers, are located at grade level in front of the
terminal building, within the Douglas Drive loop roadway. There are 241 spaces in the short-term lot,
located nearest the terminal building, behind the rental car ready/return lot. There are 714 spaces in the
long-term lot, located adjacent to the short-term lot. Both lots are filled on a first-come, first-served basis.
A remote lot with 585 spaces, located east of Douglas Drive, is provided for overflow from the short- and
long-term lots. Use of the remote lot has been increasing steadily, with peaks occurring during holiday
seasons. Combined, these lots accommodate 1,540 automobiles.
The number of auto parking spaces needed to accommodate current and projected demand is estimated
using a planning ratio relating parking spaces to enplanements. Based on FAA Advisory Circular
150/5360-13, Planning and Design of Airport Terminal Facilities, up to 3,300 parking spaces are required
Table 3-5
per million enplanements. presents the expected demand using this rate.
3-20
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Table 3-5: Public Automobile Parking Requirements
Passenger Public Automobile Parking
Year
Enplanements Required Available
2006 360,258 1,189 1,540
2011 412,873 1,362
2016 445,593 1,470
2026 557,736 1,841
Contingency 700,000 2,310
Based on full utilization of the overflow public parking lot, the 1,540 available parking spaces are
expected to be sufficient through 2016, but 300 additional spaces are expected to be required by 2026,
and 770 additional spaces (beyond the existing number) are required under the Contingency Demand
scenario.
As mentioned above, 585 parking spaces (38 percent of the total parking spaces) are located in a remote
lot across Douglas Drive. This lot requires the use of a shuttle for passengers to access the terminal.
The use of this remote lot during peak periods, winter and spring holidays, has become more common,
which indicates that the 955 parking spaces in the main lots close to the terminal are at capacity during
those periods. A study of parking records indicates that parking during the peak period is approximately
22 to 25 percent higher than average when the remote lot is being used. Because of the cost of
operating the remote lot and its inconvenience to passengers, it is recommended that the parking areas
closer to the terminal be expanded so that the use of the remote lot can be limited to periods of peak
usage.
Options for providing short- and long-term public auto parking (including possible continued use of an
overflow lot), will be explored and considered in Chapter Four, Alternate Plan Concepts.
Rental Car Parking
The four rental car agencies operating in the passenger terminal share in the use of the Airport’s rental
car facilities. Rental car parking is distributed between two functional areas: a ready/return lot and a
storage/service lot. The ready/return lot is located across Douglas Drive from the passenger terminal.
The storage/service lot is located on the north end of passenger parking, within Douglas Drive loop
roadway. There are 144 spaces in the ready/return lot, and 115 spaces in the storage/service lot, which
also has service and cleaning facilities. These lots and facilities are well utilized and near capacity, and
additional service facilities are desired.
The need for rental cars can be correlated to passenger enplanements, to forecast demand, as shown in
Table 3-6
.
3-21
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Table 3-6: Rental Car Parking Requirements
Rental Car Parking
Passenger
Return/ReadyStorage/Service
Enplanements
Year
Required AvailableRequired Available
2006 360,258 108 144 144 115
2011 412,873 124 165
2016 445,593 134 178
2026 557,736 167 223
Contingency 700,000 210 280
Source: Mead & Hunt
The 144 available return/ready spaces are expected to be sufficient through 2016, but 23 additional
spaces are expected to be required by 2026, and 66 additional spaces will likely be needed under the
Contingency Demand scenario.
The 115 available storage/service spaces are currently insufficient. 29 additional spaces are required
today, 108 are expected to be required by 2026, and 165 additional spaces will likely be needed under
the Contingency Demand scenario.
Improvements to the ready/return lot should be in the existing location, as it is convenient to pedestrians
and vehicles accessing the passenger terminal. As rental car storage/service lots and facilities are
added/expanded, consideration should be given to abandoning the current site and relocating them to
another part of the airfield that can accommodate their operation and long-term expansion. The south
airfield area, along the east-west section of Airport Road, is likely an appropriate site. Relocation of the
storage/service lot out of the terminal area will make the site available for public, rental car ready/return,
or employee automobile parking.
Options for providing rental car parking will be explored and considered in Chapter Four, Alternate Plan
Concepts.
Employee Parking
The employee parking area consists of two adjacent lots north of the terminal area, accessed by
Lockheed Drive. One lot with 117 spaces is assigned to Airport employees. The second lot has 48
spaces that are used also by Airport Administration, TSA, FBO, north corporate and general aviation
area, and on-airport businesses.
It is estimated that a 20 percent increase in employees will be sufficient to meet the needs of the Airport
over the study period. An increase in employee parking spaces of 20 percent (for a total of 140 spaces)
has been included in the parking requirements for the baseline growth conditions. Since the Airport
employee parking area is commonly full, increased parking should be planned for in the near-term.
As the north ramp FBO and old ATCT area is reconfigured for modern facilities and utilization,
consideration should be given to the adequacy of the automobile parking in this area.
3-22
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 3
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
8.4 Airport Access
Ground access to the Airport is primarily by Airport Road from State Highway 99. Reconfigured as part of
Runway 16L/34R improvements, Airport Road becomes Douglas Drive, and connects to Lockheed Drive,
Northrop Road, and Airport Road. This network leads into the core of the airfield, providing passengers,
pilots, tenants, and employees a direct route to their airport facility. Before this reconfiguration, many
stops, starts, and slowed turns were required to reach the airfield. This improvement now provides
access to the Airport with no stops for most users. Access to the Hollis Lane area requires travel on
Green Hill Road, which was also reconfigured with Airport Road. Traveling north from its intersection with
Airport Road, Green Hill Road follows Runway 16L/34R to intersect with Hollis Lane, which accesses the
Hollis Lane area, in the northern portion of the airfield. The Airport’s new access road system is expected
to accommodate vehicle traffic and airport access through the planning period. Alternatives for
expanding auto parking, however, may have an impact on the Airport access roadway. Issues related to
potential expansion of auto parking and possible impacts on the roadway will be treated in an integral
manner in Chapter Four, Alternate Plan Concepts.
9. Utilities
One of the tasks in this Master Plan Update is to provide the City of Eugene with consolidated utility maps
of the Airport. This is being accomplished as part of an extended inventory effort using a combination of
“as-construct” drawings and field verification. The new maps being developed as part of the aerial
photogrammetry work also being completed under this Master Plan Update contract will be used as base
maps.
The following utilities are addressed in this effort:
Domestic water
Sanitary sewer
Storm drainage
Natural gas
Electric
Telecommunications
3-23
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
4
4
ݸ¿°¬»®
Alternative Plan Concepts
This chapter of the Eugene
Airport Master Plan Update
presents information related
to the development and
evaluation of alternatives for
the improvement of Eugene
Airport. It is based on the
facility needs documented in
Chapter 3, Demand/Capacity
Analysis and Determination of
Facility Requirements.
Presentation and discussion of alternative plan concepts are presented for the following sections:
Evaluation Criteria
Airfield Facilities
Terminal Facilities
Special Airport Facilities
Automobile Parking and Circulation
Airport Property
For some facility requirements identified as being needed for the Airport, there are several alternatives
that have been developed for consideration. For other facility needs, there is a single, logical
development path outlined. Following are descriptions of the alternative improvement scenarios
developed, and advantages of those alternatives.
ïò
Evaluation Criteria
The airport development scenarios and alternatives are evaluated based on the following criteria:
The movement of aircraft, both in the air as they arrive and depart runways, and on the ground as they
taxi between runways and terminal areas, is a key factor in considering development. Safety to the
airport and aircraft is a priority for development. Even some improvements which may not affect
aircraft operations may affect visibility requirements.
The ability of an improvement to be compatible with ongoing airport operations and to be implemented
without significant disruption to current airport facilities is also a priority. Long-term compatibility is
also a factor, as airport improvements generally take time and several funding cycles to implement,
and are often expected to perform their role and provide their service for an extended period. The
ability of a facility to be expanded is also considered.
4-1
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
The accessibility and convenience of airport users, including pilots, passengers, and businesses were
evaluated, as these features are important to the perception of the airport. The effects an
improvement may have on the environment, and the relative cost of improvement alternatives, are
also critical aspects.
Those improvements requiring the selection of a preferred alternative are presented in terms of the
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative relative to each other, so their comparison can direct
the selection of a proposed action.
îò
Airfield Facilities
This section of the document presents discussion and evaluation of various facility needs related to the
Airport’s airfield facilities, including runway, taxiway, and other movement areas.
The airfield capacity of EUG exceeds the forecasted demand, largely because of the parallel runway
Exhibit 4-1
configuration, and the extensive taxiway system (see ). These features have been developed
from the implementations of planning, construction, and operational efforts occurring over the life and
history of the Airport. Improvements to airfield pavements should be coordinated with Eugene’s Airport
Control Tower.
2.1 Runways
Runway 16R/34L is currently 8,009 feet, which accommodates aircraft currently operating at EUG and
those projected through 2026. However, the ability to extend the runway to 9,200 feet has been
developed as part of previous Master Plans, and should continue to be preserved, so that the need can
be accommodated once it is justified. This additional length has been shown to be attained by extending
the runway south. The southern extension of Runway End 34L is able to be accommodated primarily on
land owned by the Airport. Extending south would also prevent the need to relocate the elaborate
Category III Instrument Landing System currently serving Runway End 16R.
Runway 16L/34R is currently 6,000 feet, which is the originally constructed length. This 6,000-foot length
accommodates the aircraft fleet for which it was intended. However, situations may arise resulting in the
primary Runway 16R/34L being offline, and parallel Runway 16L/34R being the only available runway.
These situations may be temporary and emergency in nature, or more likely, are to be extended periods
necessary to accommodate scheduled maintenance of the primary runway.
Scheduled passenger service aircraft generally operate on primary Runway 16R/34L, due to the runway
length, aircraft instrumentation, navigational aids, and proximity to the terminal. Regularly scheduled
maintenance to this runway requires adequate time and maneuverability of ground crews and equipment,
which is best offered with the runway being closed. The closing of the primary runway forces aircraft
traffic to the parallel runway. Because of the shorter length of the parallel runway, not all aircraft are able
to operate on the parallel runway under the same conditions as they operate on the primary runway.
4-2
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-3
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
The runway length required by aircraft depends on factors such as weather, distance of haul, and weight,
which consists of passenger, cargo, and fuel load. Reduction in distance of haul and weight can result in
reduction of required runway length. However, airlines have minimum operational policies, and in some
cases, do not operate aircraft in certain situations and below certain runway lengths. It is expected that
extending Runway 16L/34R from 6,000 feet to 6,500 feet will allow a greater range of air carrier aircraft to
operate on this runway, and prevent scheduled commercial service from having to cease service at EUG,
and divert to other airports.
There are two options to extending Runway 16L/34R: one is to the north, the other to the south. Both
options require relocation of existing facilities, and construction of new ones, including 500 feet of runway
and extending the connecting taxiway. However, it is expected that the length of 6,500 feet can likely be
attained without excessive mitigation or effect on the airport and adjacent facilities.
Exhibit 4-2
Runway 16L/34R Extension Alternative 1
(see )
Runway End 16L has a Precision Instrument Approach Procedure, which guides aircraft to the runway
end during inclement weather. The navigation and instrumentation is provided to aircraft by an
Instrument Landing System (ILS). The ILS consists of an approach light system and two signal
transmitting devices (a glide slope and a localizer). These three elements are specifically located relative
to the runway end, such that if the runway end is moved, the ILS components must also move. These
ILS components have associated critical areas, required to be free of objects that may interfere with the
signal transmission and view of lights. Extending Runway End 16L would require the relocation of the
approach light system (Medium Intensity Approach Light System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights
(MALSR)) and the glide slope antenna.
The Precision Instrument Approach Procedure is established by the FAA, and disseminated to pilots
through recurring FAA publications. If Runway End 16L were to be relocated, the procedure would
require adjustment in the FAA’s system and the FAA’s publications would need to be edited and re-
published, so that aircraft would be directed to the new runway end.
As Runway End 16L is extended north, the associated FAA-defined design surfaces also shift north.
Several of these surfaces would be contained on airport property, and would likely not be an issue.
However, the aircraft approach surface would shift to the north, closer to utility poles and towers along
State Route 99, and to those on Fiddler’s Green Golf Course. The structures would likely require removal,
relocation, or adjustment to provide an unobstructed approach path for aircraft. It is expected that the
relocated approach surface would provide adequate clearance over Green Hill Road.
The Precision Instrument Approach Procedure serving Runway End 16L has with it a large Runway
Protection Zone (RPZ), another FAA-defined design surface. The RPZ would shift north such that a
significant portion of it would encompass Fiddler’s Green Golf Course. Although a golf course may under
certain situations be considered compatible land use within an RPZ, it is generally desired and
advantageous for the airport to control land within the RPZ. This may lead to the acquisition of this
property in an effort to maintain safety in the air and on the ground.
4-4
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-5
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
Exhibit 4-3
Runway 16L/34R Extension Alternative 2
(see )
Runway End 34R has a Non-Precision Instrument Approach Procedure, which guides aircraft to the
runway end during bad weather, but not to minimums as low as those provided by the ILS on Runway
End 16L. The procedure serving Runway End 34R is not associated with on-field navigational aids, signal
transmitters, or lighting systems. However, one component of the ILS serving Runway End 16L is located
adjacent to Runway End 34R, and would require relocation if Runway End 34R were to be relocated.
The Non-Precision Instrument Approach Procedure serving Runway End 34R is also managed by the
FAA in the same manor as the procedure serving Runway End 16L. If Runway End 34R were to be
relocated, the procedure would require adjustment and edit, so that aircraft would be directed to the new
runway end.
As Runway End 34R is extended south, the associated FAA-defined design surfaces also shift south.
These surfaces would be contained on airport property, and would likely not be an issue. It is expected
that the relocated approach surface would provide adequate clearance over Airport Road.
The Non-Precision Instrument Approach Procedure serving Runway End 34R has with it a Runway
Protection Zone (RPZ). This RPZ is not as large as the RPZ associated with Runway End 34R. Even
though the Runway End 34R RPZ would shift south, it would still encompass mostly airport property, such
that additional land and land use restrictions would likely not be required.
Comparison
Neither of the extension options is expected to require the relocation of public roads. Both options require
the same amount of pavement for runway, taxiway, and blast pad. Both require similar adjustment to
existing airfield lighting, signage, and marking. Both require relocation of visual navigational aids
(Runway End Identified Lights (REIL) and Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI). The significant
difference, from a construction aspect, is the relocation of the glide slope antenna and approach light
system required by the extension to Runway End 16L, compared to the relocation of the localizer antenna
array required by the extension to Runway End 34R. Each of the ILS components are co-located with an
equipment shelter, and accessed by secured (gated) service roads. These elements must also be
considered in the relocation of the ILS components.
Of the three ILS devices (MALSR, localizer, and glide slope), the MALSR has the most components, and
covers the greatest area on the ground. Approximately 15 light standards (poles), spread over a distance
exceeding 2,000 feet, would require relocation. A localizer and a glide slope are each single features with
the significant components of each device being in primarily one location. Only the northern runway
extension of Runway End 16L requires relocation of the MALSR. With this option, the MALSR would shift
onto the Fiddler’s Green Golf Course, and conflict with existing structures, which would have to be
removed. This supports Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
4-6
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-7
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
The ability to control the land within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is also a significant factor in a
runway extension. A northern extension of Runway End 16L places the RPZ on private property, which
may require acquisition to control. A southern extension of Runway End 34R keeps the RPZ on airport
property. This supports Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
The amount of obstruction removal is also a factor. A northern extension of Runway End 16L shifts the
approach surface into conflict with existing poles and towers. A southern extension of Runway End 34R
is not expected to introduce obstructions. This supports Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
As a runway end is extended, the range of visibility required by the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)
increases. Visibility requirements limit the airfield areas which can be developed with structures and
parked aircraft, and affect the movement areas of aircraft. Both extension options would require setting
aside additional land for ATCT visibility. However, a northern extension of Runway End 16L would
require a greater area for ATCT visibility than a southern extension of Runway End 34R. In particular, the
area between Hollis Lane and Taxiway B, north of Taxiway C, being reserved for aviation manufacturing,
would be affected by the ATCT visibility requirements resulting from a northern extension of Runway End
16L. This supports Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
Third Alternative
A third option is to add runway length to both runway ends to attain the 500-foot increase, although such
an option would likely not prevent the required relocation of the ILS components, nor the revision to FAA
approach procedures and publications. Also, such an option is not expected to lessen construction nor
ease facility implementation, both of which would be desired of any airfield improvement.
Environmental Factors
Other factors influencing the direction of runway extension may be presented as part of an environmental
assessment, or similar documentation process. Environmental documentation considers specific details
of an improvement, and provides opportunity for review and input from regulatory agencies and the
public. It is expected that such an environmental process will be required prior to implementation of this
runway extension.
Wetland Impact
Exhibits 4-2 and 4-3 show extended runways, Runway Safety Areas, and Runway Protection Zones for
Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. Areas within the extended runway for Alternative 1 were filled and/or
mitigated for fill as part of the original runway construction. There would be some wetland impacts due to
the expansion of the Runway Safety Area for Alternative 2. Alternative 1 would be preferable to reduce
wetland impacts.
Implementation
Regardless of extending the runway north or south, the process of lengthening the parallel runway will
likely require one of two actions. One option is to temporarily shorten the parallel runway’s effective,
usable length by relocating the runway threshold to safely accommodate the construction on one runway
4-8
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
end, while aircraft continue to operate on the runway. Another option is to temporarily close the shorter
parallel runway during construction, shifting 100% of the aircraft operations to the longer primary runway.
The best course of action should be determined during the planning, environmental, design, and
construction phasing of the project. The implementation of the extension should include consideration of
additional details, and quantification of effects and impacts.
2.2 Taxiways
EUG benefits from an elaborate taxiway system, including full parallels to both runways, a midfield
connector (a portion of which accommodates two simultaneous aircraft), and several routes to terminal
areas, which provide direct travel among touchdown, terminal, and take-off.
One feature expected to increase the efficiency of aircraft ground movement is the addition of acute angle
(or “high speed”) taxiway connectors. Taxiway connectors are the shorter sections of pavement bridging
the gap between the runway and the parallel taxiway. These connectors have traditionally been
configured to be at right angles (90 degrees) to the direction of the runway and taxiway, allowing an
aircraft exiting the runway to turn either direction onto the parallel taxiway. However, a right angle
connector intersection requires the aircraft to slow considerably, by wheel-braking and reversing the
engines, loosing its momentum from touchdown. The aircraft then must increase engine power to
accelerate across the connector, and then repeat the process to negotiate the second right-angle turn
onto the parallel taxiway.
This abrupt and repetitious action between brake and acceleration negatively affects the efficient
movement of the aircraft around the airfield. It results in a shift in the steady flow of the aircraft movement
experienced by the onboard passengers, and also in wear on the aircraft. It also expends more fuel in
reversing the engines to slow, thrusting the engines to connect, and thrusting again once on the parallel
taxiway, resulting in increased exhaust emissions, and in increased noise from the revving engines.
The acute angle taxiway connector capitalizes on the motion and energy of the moving aircraft, as the
pilot directs the aircraft gently from the runway onto the connector, and gently onto the taxiway, without
significant change in direction or speed. It allows aircraft to more quickly exit the runway, making it
available for other aircraft. It also encourages aircraft to take direct paths between runway and terminal.
Operators using EUG benefit from several existing acute angle connectors. Taxiways A4 and A6 allow
for efficient transition off a runway by an arriving aircraft using the aircraft’s momentum. Taxiways A3, A7,
and A8 are also acute angle connectors, but because of their location near the runway ends, are more
conducive to direct routing than to steady aircraft movement, as there is not sufficient distance for an
arriving aircraft to touchdown and exit the runway at A3, A7, and A8.
Improvement Alternatives
It may be beneficial to locate acute angle connectors either as a replacement of an existing right angle
connector or as introduction of a new taxi route.
4-9
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
Primary Runway/Taxiway
Introduction of acute angle connectors north of A4 and north of A5 may help aircraft arriving on Runway
End 34L to quickly exit to Taxiway A. A connection north of A5 would bridge the runway with Taxiway P.
These improvements would ease travel between the primary runway and the midfield/Hollis Lane aviation
area, an area which is planned and expected to develop with corporate aviation and aviation businesses.
Parallel Runway/Taxiway
Modification of the right angle connector B2, which bridges Runway 16L/34R with Taxiways C and B, to
two acute angle taxiways (one from Runway End 16L, one from Runway End 34R) connecting to Taxiway
C may provide better flow. This configuration is similar to the existing intersection of Taxiways C, M, and
P. Or, a new connector south of connector B2, to connect Runway 16L/34R to Taxiways B and M may
provide a similar pattern.
It may also be beneficial to have acute angle connectors among taxiways, taxilanes, and aprons, and not
just runways, especially if aircraft circulation movements are commonly in one direction. Aircraft ground
movements can be observed among aircraft, or can be established by the airport, to continue or result in
efficient and direct paths. Not every opportunity for such a connector is considered as part of this Master
Plan Update, but areas should be evaluated as traffic patterns are established and modified.
As parallel Runway 16R/34L is extended, parallel Taxiway B will also be extended to connect to the new
runway end. The existing section of Taxiway B which connects to the existing runway end will remain in
place to continue to serve as a connector and opportunity for aircraft to exit the runway. This existing
taxiway connector, along with the new taxiway connector to the new runway end, will provide a taxiway
coupler, allowing aircraft which have exited the runway to wait on the existing connector, while aircraft
taxiing to the new runway end can travel to the new connector as they wait to enter the runway. This will
prevent the aircraft from simultaneously entering the taxiway in conflicting directions. Pilots using primary
Runway 16R/34L benefits from existing taxiway couplers on both runway ends. As this improved
situation develops on the end of parallel Runway 16L/34R which is extended, it may be of benefit to
introduce a taxiway coupler on the end of parallel Runway 16L/34R that is not extended. There is
expected to be ample space for such an improvement, which will likely improve the ground circulation
movement of aircraft on the eastern side of the airfield.
Additional Areas
Other taxiway connections, besides acute angle, may also benefit ground movements. For example, the
introduction of a taxilane connecting the North Ramp to East General Aviation Ramp would prevent
aircraft from having to enter ATCT-controlled movement areas, thereby easing ground movements, and
freeing ATCT for other tasks.
The northern extension of the taxiway connecting Taxiway C to the Hollis Lane Aviation Area taxilane
would give aircraft more direct connection to the primary runway, and to the terminal area. Extending
north to Taxiway A gives direct access between the Hollis Area and Runway End 16R. Extending south,
to Taxiway P and on to the terminal apron, gives direct access between FBO services and corporate
4-10
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
aviation facilities. Direct taxiways increase efficient aircraft ground movements by minimizing taxiway
time and distance.
As midfield development increases, the activity may be such that the extension of Taxiway M to Taxiway
A would ease traffic currently carried by Taxiway C. This is especially the case if there is extensive
simultaneous movement in both eastbound and westbound directions. Having only one midfield taxiway
connecting both east and west sides of the airfield forces aircraft wanting to travel in one direction to wait
until the one taxiway is vacant, or to find another more indirect route.
The extension of Taxiway C beyond its terminus at Taxiway A, on to connect with Runway 16R/34L, may
provide direct access from midfield to the primary runway. Or it may be that such a connection conflicts
with Taxiway A4, or is undesirable, in which case, it may be best to provide such connection only for
surface vehicles, especially ARFF.
As new airport businesses and facilities develop, many may require direct taxiway access to support their
function. As taxiway connectors are introduced, consideration should be given to the appropriate
name/number designation, which may prompt renaming of adjacent taxi routes. Taxiway development
and flow patterns should be coordinated with FAA advisory documents and Airport Traffic Control Tower
personnel, and properly represented on the Airport Layout Plan before being implemented, so that
standards and practices of safety and procedure are considered.
3. Terminal Areas
EUG has terminal areas serving cargo and charter aircraft,
general aviation and corporate aircraft, and passenger
aircraft. They each provide interface between landside and
airside operations and services, and they each provide
transfer of people and goods between transportation modes.
This section addresses the improvements to each terminal
area.
3.1 Main Passenger Terminal Area
Exhibits 4-44-5
(see and )
The main passenger terminal area is the face of EUG to the local community. This is the destination to
which the traveling public of the Eugene area comes to park their car, pick-up a friend, and embark on a
flight. It is from where they depart, and to where they return. This section addresses improvements to
the main passenger terminal building. Automobile parking forthe main passenger terminal is addressed
in Section 5 – Automobile Parking and Circulation.
4-11
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-12
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-13
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
Main Passenger Terminal Building
The existing terminal building is approximately 89,000 square feet and has 10 aircraft boarding gates, and
in 2006 accommodated approximately 360,000 enplanements. Based on the long-term forecasted
passenger enplanements of 700,000 annually, 14 gates (4 additional) and 100,000 square feet (11,000
additional) are expected to be required.
For discussion, development is separated into landside-passenger interface (airline ticketing, passenger
and baggage screening, baggage claim, and airport administration), and airside-passenger interface
(aircraft boarding gates). Additional services and businesses, such as rental car counters and offices,
convenient shops, and restaurants, may also be desired, based upon the business opportunity. These
facilities are not specifically being planned as part of this Master Plan Update; however it is assumed that
increased space in the overall terminal, plus increased traffic, will offer opportunities for the development
of more concessions. Other improvements (requiring additional square footage), such as additional
security, public meeting space, and restrooms, should also be included in architectural design for overall
terminal building expansion. Consideration of these items follows.
Landside-Passenger Interface
From the perspective of essential landside-passenger functions, the main passenger terminal building is
home to airline ticketing and offices, passenger and baggage security screening, and baggage claim
(carousel). A single, logical development option is presented for improvement of these facilities.
Airline ticketing and offices will expand to the north, as a continuation of the existing airline counter area.
Original building design included the north wall as a “knock-down” to allow this incremental expansion to
occur efficiently. This will likely require additional square footage, to the north of the existing building,
where space currently serving as landscaping is expected to be available.
Baggage screening currently occurs in front of the airline ticketing and offices. The airport has evaluated
relocating the baggage screening equipment, personnel, and process to an area out of the main public
space and to a more discreet and protected area of the terminal building. This would return the current
baggage screening to public space, and conceal the baggage screening process. Adding new square
footage behind the airline ticketing and offices, along the back of the existing terminal building, is
expected to be suitable for current baggage screening operations and related office space. This site
would also likely allow for expansion of these operations as passenger and aircraft activity increase at
EUG.
Passenger security screening will expand in its current location, which bridges the landside-passenger
area with the airside-passenger area. Although expansion of security is not expected to extend beyond
the existing limits of the terminal building, accommodation of expanded security may require some
businesses being relocated within the existing terminal or into an expanded area. It is also prudent for
the Airport to plan for the implementation of automated terminal exit lane security monitoring.
The existing baggage claim (carousel) is located in the southwest corner of the terminal building. This
facility is to expand south, as a continuation of the existing baggage claim area. This will likely require
additional square footage, to the south of the existing building. This area currently serves as the baggage
loading area, and will require adjustment to baggage vehicle routes and loading locations, but the space
4-14
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
is expected to be available. Again, the building was designed with this expansion in mind, and it remains
a logical choice.
Airport administration is currently located in a temporary facility in the northern airfield area. At airports
the size of EUG, airport administration is often located in the main passenger terminal building. This
provides for more direct contact with airport tenants and the traveling public, and for increased customer
service. As the terminal building is expanded for the improved baggage claim facility, it should include
space for airport administration. These offices may be best located in a multi-story structure, above the
baggage claim area, so that the main floor of the terminal is available to pedestrian movements.
Consideration should also be given to providing public meeting space in this expansion, for public events
such as airport open houses.
Along with the new airport administration offices, automobile parking for airport staff would need to be
introduced near the new offices. This may best be located near the area of the current ARFF facility,
south of the proposed airport staff offices. Once the new ARFF facility is operational, transition of a
portion of the existing ARFF area to parking lot may be suitable. The existing structure, once vacated,
may be temporarily used for airport-owned equipment storage, or for FAA equipment storage and offices.
However, long term improvements should consider the removal of the former ARFF structure, and
redevelopment for compatible use with terminal area activities.
Airside-Passenger Interface
From the perspective of essential airside-passenger functions, the main passenger terminal building is
home to aircraft boarding gates. Two alternatives are presented for improvement of these facilities to
increase aircraft boarding gates. Consideration should also be given to improvement of common areas,
holding areas, queuing areas, and restrooms.
Passenger Terminal Building Alternative 1
One option to provide additional gates is to expand the main Concourse A to the northwest. This would
extend the concourse structure onto area currently used for ramp, which would in turn require expansion
of the terminal ramp to accommodate separation of aircraft taxiing around other aircraft parked at the
expanded gates. Accordingly, the terminal area taxi-routes would also require adjustment.
Passenger Terminal Building Alternative 2
A second option to provide additional gates is to expand existing Concourse B to the southwest, and to
add a new Concourse C to the northeast. This would extend the concourse structure onto area currently
used for ramp and terminal employee automobile parking, and into the old ATCT and office building area.
This option would also require the addition of new pavement to expand the terminal ramp to serve the
new gates.
Comparison
Alternative 2 requires considerable adjustment to the current employee parking area, and significant
paving to provide new ramp space for aircraft movement and parking. Based on this factor alone, this
supports Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative.
4-15
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
Alternative 1 may introduce structures that present line-of-site issues to the ATCT, as it is expected to
introduce new structures into areas currently used for aircraft taxi and require the realignment of
established aircraft taxi-routes. This may require additional taxi pavement, and may complicate an
already complex set of intersections of taxiways and taxilanes with the terminal ramp. Such complication
could lead to aircraft congestion and pilot confusion in traveling between the runways and terminal area.
This supports Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
Alternative 2 would make use of existing Concourse B which is generally underutilized. Improvements
would likely include renovation of this concourse to better accommodate passenger holding and boarding.
Expansion of Concourse B would extend into the areas currently used for ground vehicle circulation.
However, as ARFF operations are relocated out of this area and the passenger terminal building expands
to the southwest, current ground vehicle routes are expected to be modified, so that an expanded
Concourse B would not interfere with ground vehicle circulation.
Alternative 2 introduces a new concourse, providing an opportunity to distribute passengers over
additional area, instead of consolidating passengers in one concourse. This also provides more
opportunity for additional businesses to develop and serve passengers. This supports Alternative 2 as
the preferred alternative.
Alternative 2 requires significant relocation of existing facilities in the North Ramp terminal area. This
would likely include the old ATCT and office building, airport landscaping building, and parking for airport
administration and terminal employees. The old ATCT and office building and airport landscaping
building have been identified as having fulfilled their useful and economic lives and this area has been
targeted for redevelopment with higher and better uses. Other improvements include the relocation of
airport administration to the terminal building, making this area also available for redevelopment.
Relocation of airport administration to the terminal would also likely include a new automobile parking lot
for airport staff. With these North Ramp facilities and services each located to a new home, expansion of
the terminal building to this area is a compatible and high-value use of this site. This supports Alternative
2 as the preferred alternative.
Third Alternative
A third option is to add space to the northwest, southwest, and northeast sides of the terminal to increase
gates, although this option is still expected to impact existing aircraft parking, taxi-routes, and ground
vehicle circulation routes. Such an option is not expected to lessen construction nor ease facility
implementation, both of which would be desired of any terminal improvement.
Wetland Impact
No wetlands are expected to be affected by either alternative, although a wetland jurisdictional study
would be required to confirm.
4-16
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
Implementation
The process of expanding the main passenger terminal building and ramp will require temporary
adjustments to the standard practices and movements of aircraft on the ramp and passengers in the
terminal. The expansion would likely not have to occur at one time, but could instead be phased, as
gates and ramp are needed. The best course of action should be determined during the planning,
design, and construction phasing of the project.
3.2 Other Terminal Areas
The airport has four terminal areas (besides the main passenger terminal area): North Ramp, South
Ramp, East General Aviation Ramp, and Hollis Lane Aviation Area. These areas are home to airport and
aircraft services, aviation-related businesses, and aircraft storage. Together they provide 37 box
hangars, 130 T-hangar units, and 144 tie-downs (22 of which are permanently occupied). Facility
analysis and requirements determined a need for an additional 20 box hangars, 20 T-hangar units, and 2
tie-downs. As each of the four terminal areas has opportunity and available space, the development
should be distributed over the areas, as best suited for the particular facility. New developments are
expected to be evaluated for the most suitable site, based on their requirements, as they are introduced
to the Airport. It is also expected that as hangars reach the end of their useful and economic lives, they
will be replaced with similar structures in their current locations. The following discusses a logical
development plan for each area, instead of alternatives, although the North Ramp does have an
improvement alternative to consider.
3.2.1 North RampExhibits 4-64-7
(see and )
The North Ramp is the area north of the main passenger terminal building area and automobile parking
lot, west of Northrop Drive, and south of Taxiway M. It is home to airport administration, airport
maintenance, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Fixed Base Operator (FBO), and aviation-
related businesses. The North Ramp provides aircraft storage in box hangars, T-hangars, and apron with
tie-downs.
Aircraft Storage
The North Ramp has 10 box hangars, 57 T-hangar units, and 61 tie-downs (6 of which are permanently
occupied). There is space for two box hangars in between existing hangars. As the proposed ARFF
facility is expected to be developed in this area, there is not room for T-hangars. The apron and tie-
downs are generally underutilized, especially on a permanent basis. A taxilane connecting the North
Ramp and East General Aviation Ramp (EGAR) is being considered. This taxilane would likely remove
aircraft tie-downs, which could be relocated to the EGAR.
4-17
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-18
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-19
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
Services and Businesses
Airport administration, airport maintenance, TSA, Friendly Air Service, the fuel farm, and other aviation-
related businesses are on the North Ramp. However, the structures for each of these have either
reached the end of their useful and economical life, or should be relocated to new or better suited
facilities.
Airport administration is currently located in a temporary facility. As the terminal is expanded, it should
include space for airport administration.
The TSA also operates from a temporary facility, from which it serves airports besides EUG. As TSA
continues their service, relocation or expansion into the larger building vacated by airport administration
(as it moves to the main terminal building) should be considered. Or, depending on the space available
within the main terminal building, it may be suitable for TSA to locate in the expanded terminal. This is
expected to occur within 5–10 years.
Along the North Ramp area apron are three buildings: the old ATCT and office building, airport
maintenance, and Friendly Air Service FBO. These buildings house services and businesses which
should be relocated to new or better suited facilities.
The old ATCT and office building is home to aviation related businesses. This facility fulfilled its primary
function once FAA operations shifted to the current ATCT and offices south of the main passenger
terminal. The businesses have been able to extend the building’s life, but this will not sustain. These
businesses are compatible with and bring benefit to the Airport, but do not necessarily require the airside
access they currently have. Such airside access is better suited for services and businesses which utilize
the airfield, and should be so reserved.
The airport maintenance building on the North Ramp is used for landscaping services. This facility is the
one airfield maintenance operation not located in the Hollis Lane Aviation Area. As this structure has
fulfilled its useful and economical life, it is recommended that this operation be shifted to the Hollis Lane
Aviation Area. If the landscaping operation cannot be consolidated into an existing building, a new
building should be constructed.
Once the need arises and suitable locations have being found for the existing services and businesses, it
is expected that the old ATCT and office building and the airport maintenance building will be razed and
made available for other development. A development option for the main passenger terminal building is
to add gates and ramp north of the main passenger terminal. The absence of the old ATCT and office
building and the airport maintenance building will accommodate this alternative. If development of the
main passenger terminal building does not require this space within the timeframe addressed in this
Master Plan Update, the Airport should consider keeping it available for some other time in the future
when it may be needed. The reason for this is that the terminal building location is set and since it is one
of the highest functional components of the Airport, flexibility regarding its future expansion should be
preserved.
4-20
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
Friendly Air Service FBO provides services to local and transient aircraft. The FBO building has fulfilled
its useful and economical life, and will require replacement. It is expected that the current site will be
used for the replacement facility. However, in order for the FBO’s operation to continue during
construction, they will likely either have to shift the new facility to a site adjacent to the current facility, or
temporarily relocate as the new facility is built. As a temporary relocation, the existing old ATCT office
building or nearby hangars may be suitable.
Once the services operating in the two temporary buildings have been relocated, and the buildings
vacated and removed, there is expected to be space available to accommodate additional box hangars.
These hangars would be aligned with the new FBO facility, such that access by aircraft would be by one
direct taxilane.
Fuel farm
The existing aircraft fuel storage facility (“fuel farm”) is located along the entrance road to the North Ramp
area (Lockheed Drive). It consists of five fuel storage tanks, all located above- ground. Although there is
space in the fuel farm for one additional fuel tank, there is not likely room for more. The fuel farm requires
access by tanker trucks delivering fuel, and access by on-airport vehicles ferrying fuel to airfield ramps to
aircraft. The location requires tanker trucks to travel the same roads as airline passenger automobiles to
reach the airfield’s center. Fuel delivery and transfer between storage tanks can interfere with other
tenant and public accessing the North Ramp. Because of this, it is beneficial to relocate the fuel farm to
the edge of the airfield, so that tanker trucks and fueling operations do not occur near the concentration of
the traveling public in the main passenger terminal building and automobile parking lot.
The fuel farm would likely be better located in the south airfield area, which would allow fuel delivery
vehicles to exit Douglas Drive before entering the airport circulation road, and to operate in an area less
concentrated with the traveling public. This new fuel farm would likely provide space for the storage
capacity offered by the existing fuel tanks, and for additional storage capacity to support increased
aviation activity. This location is also closer to the facility that operates the fueling (Flightcraft), and to
where the aircraft fueling vehicles are parked.
Reconfiguration of the North Ramp area for new hangars and aviation-related businesses is expected to
increase the opportunity for the airport to serve tenants, travel, and the community. There is expected to
be room for one FBO building, seven box hangars, taxilane and ramp, and automobile parking. For non-
airside, with the relocation of the fuel farm, there is expected to be room for several aviation-related
business facilities.
Taxiways
EUG has an elaborate taxiway system, providing direct access between many airfield areas. However,
for larger, heavier aircraft there is not a direct route between the main passenger terminal area and
parallel Runway 16L/34R. Smaller aircraft can pass on Taxiway K, as its 50-foot width is sufficient.
Larger aircraft, which require a 75-foot wide taxiway, currently travel from the main passenger terminal
ramp along Taxiway D, to Taxiway P, and onto Taxiway M to the eastern airfield. As Runway 16L/34R
sees greater use by larger aircraft needing main passenger terminal access, efficient aircraft ground
movement will be of increased importance, and a direct taxiway will be of benefit.
4-21
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
North Ramp Development Alternative 1
One option to provide direct access for larger aircraft is to construct a new taxiway between the Taxiway
D and Taxiways M and P. This new taxiway would accommodate larger, heavier aircraft, as well as
smaller general aviation aircraft. As taxiway movements are shifted from Taxiway K onto the new
taxiway, the north ramp apron can be expanded, connecting to the pavement which is currently Taxiway
K, and allowing that pavement to be converted to aircraft storage.
North Ramp Development Alternative 2
A second option to provide direct access for larger aircraft is to improve Taxiway K from 50 feet in width to
75 feet, and to improve the taxiway’s strength to that of connecting pavements. This would make the best
use of the existing pavement and taxiway route structure, and would open the north ramp up to increased
use by larger aircraft.
Comparison
Introducing a new taxiway would allow for the expansion of the north ramp apron. However, the north
ramp currently has available ramp space that is underutilized, as only 6 of 61 tie-downs are permanently
occupied. This may change as the north ramp services and businesses are redeveloped, but there is not
an anticipated need for additional north ramp aircraft space. A new taxiway may also complicate pilot
understanding of aircraft ground movements (and associated airfield signage and marking), at the
intersection of the new taxiway with Taxiways C, M, and P on the northeast, and at the intersection with
Taxiways D and E on the southwest. These reasons, along with the expected ease of implementation of
Taxiway K improvements, support the widening and strengthening of Taxiway K as the preferred
alternative.
Wetland Impact
Alternative 1, shown on Exhibit 4-6, would impact more open space and has a higher probability of
impacting more wetland acreage. The affect of Alternative 1 versus Alternative 2 on wetlands cannot be
accurately discerned due to a lack of historical wetland delineations within this area. This is also true
regarding the Future Aviation Related Businesses depicted in both drawings. This area should be subject
to a wetland jurisdictional delineation.
3.2.2 South RampExhibit 4-8
(see )
The South Ramp is the area south of the main passenger terminal area and automobile parking lot,
southwest of Douglas Drive, west of Airport Road, and south of Taxiway G. It is home to FAA Airport
Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF), air cargo and charter, Lane
Aviation Academy, Flightcraft Services, and aviation-related businesses. The South Ramp provides
aircraft storage in box hangars, T-hangars, and apron with tie-downs.
4-22
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-23
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
Aircraft Storage
The South Ramp has 23 box hangars, 59 T-hangar units, and 68 tie-downs (3 of which are permanently
occupied). There is space for one box hangar/terminal in between existing hangars, and there is not
room for T-hangars. Additional hangars could be placed to the south of the current T-hangars, but would
consume space being reserved and intended for commercial development.
The apron and tie-downs are generally underutilized, especially on a permanent basis. For this and other
reasons, aircraft deicing activities are considered being located on the South Ramp apron. Moving
deicing to this location would require introduction of new taxilane pavement, pavement strengthening, and
removal of ramp and tie-downs. The ramp and tie-downs can likely be replaced in the EGAR.
Services and Businesses
The FAA ATCT, ARFF, air cargo and charter, Lane Aviation Academy, Flightcraft Services FBO, Helitrade
FBO, Lawrence FBO, Oregon Air & Space Museum, and other aviation-related businesses are on the
South Ramp. Some of the structures housing these facilities are new, modern, and expected to be
sufficient for the forecast period, while others need to be expanded, and some even replaced.
The FAA operates EUG’s ATCT, and other regional aircraft and airspace services from their on-field
facility. The FAA has expressed a need for increased facility size, and space has been (and should
continue to be) reserved for them.
The ARFF facility houses the airport’s emergency response vehicles and personnel. This facility has
fulfilled its useful and economical life, and is expected to be relocated to the North Ramp.
The air cargo and charter facility has recently been completed to consolidate operations formerly
performed at various locations around the airfield. This improvement project also expanded the
cargo/charter apron to accommodate the larger aircraft often used in charter operations, and those larger
aircraft that could be associated with additional air cargo business. The new air cargo/charter site is
expected to accommodate three additional buildings along the new ramp.
Lane Aviation Academy expects to add a new classroom structure in their building cluster, and to add
ramp space to their maintenance facility. Space adjacent to their facilities is available for this expansion.
Flightcraft Services FBO, providing EUG’s aircraft fueling and other services, expects to expand their
facility with in the near term with additional terminal and hangar space, and automobile parking. Space
adjacent to their facility is available for this expansion. Helitrade FBO, serving rotorcraft, is expected to
continue to operate from its hangar, although its expected growth includes ground storage space instead
of hangar space. Lawrence FBO has recently relocated from the old ATCT and office building on the
North Ramp to the new air cargo and charter facility on the South Ramp, a location which is expected to
accommodate their operations for the forecast period.
The rental car service/storage facilities are to be relocated from the main passenger terminal automobile
parking lot to the south airfield. This relocation will make space available for additional passenger
automobile parking in the main lot, allow for an improved rental car service facility, and accommodate the
4-24
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
current (144) and projected (280) rental car service/storage parking stalls. The new site also provides for
growth of rental car services and business. Depending on airport policy and agreements, consideration
should be given to siting the rental car facility on existing airport property, acquiring additional property, or
on private property.
The fuel farm is also expected to be relocated to the southern airfield from the North Ramp, to distance
fuel storage from areas of concentrated traveling public, and to ease fuel transfer and delivery.
The Oregon Air & Space Museum (OASM) is considering a new larger facility, which likely could not be
accommodated at its current site. One location being considered for the OASM is the in the eastern
airfield. Relocation out of the current facility will make the former OASM space available, and once the
relocation is scheduled, reuse and redevelopment of the current OASM facility should be considered.
Space for commercial development is being reserved along the airport entrance road at the intersection
of Airport Road and Douglas Drive. This is high visibility property that may be best suited for landside,
non-aeronautical business and services. Three corners of the intersection (all except the southwest) are
owned by the Airport, and there may be benefit to the Airport controlling the southwest corner. A
proposed roadway is shown as a possible way to open up the northwestern corner for development.
Existing zoning shows agricultural use for the two southern corners of this intersection, and development
of these southern corners for commercial purposes will likely require local rezoning.
Wetland Impact
Improvements to the South Ramp area, as depicted on Exhibit 4-8, include numerous structures and
potential future development. Several of these structures would have minimal wetland impact. These
include the “Future LAA Ramp” and the “Future Air Cargo/Charter” building included in the wetland
delineation (Environmental Solutions, 2006). The “Future Rental Car Service & Storage” would most
likely have little or no impact on wetlands, although it is not completely within the aforementioned
delineation. The “Future Flightcraft Hangar/Terminal”, “Future LAA Classroom” and “Possible FAA”
structures would most likely have no impact, although a wetland determination would need to be made.
The greatest impact, if any, is most likely to occur in the areas labeled “Future Commercial Development”,
“Future Fuel Farm”, and a connector road west of the intersection of Airport Road and Douglas Drive.
The area labeled “Future Commercial Development” to the southwest of Airport Road and Douglas Drive
contain soils with the highest probability for wetland characteristics, although a wetland delineation would
need to be performed to determine this conclusively.
There are two wetland areas that could be avoided near the areas labeled “Future Commercial
Development” southeast of the intersection of Airport Road and Douglas Drive, and “Future Commercial
Development” northeast of the intersection of Airport Road and Douglas Drive. Both of these areas have
known wetlands on-site which could potentially be completely avoided.
4-25
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
3.3.3 East General Aviation RampExhibit 4-9
(see)
The East General Aviation Ramp (EGAR) is the area east of Northrop Drive, and south of Taxiway M. It
is home to aircraft storage, in 3 box hangars, 14 T-hangar units, and apron. The EGAR began as one of
the early phases of the parallel Runway 16L/34R project, and continued growth is expected. There is
availability for and benefit from developing EGAR with additional aircraft storage, and with aviation-related
businesses.
Aircraft Storage
EGAR has room for 16 box hangars and 20 T-hangar units. Many of the sites have been prepared with
access taxilanes and utilities. Hangar sites have height restrictions to accommodate ATCT visibility, but it
is expected that suitable structures can be built to house aircraft, and still allow for clear observation from
the tower. The existing apron provides aircraft parking, but is not equipped with tie-downs. Even though
the North and South Ramps have been identified as having tie-downs that are underutilized, introduction
of tie-downs in the EGAR area would likely be of benefit to based and transient aircraft using the parallel
runway and accessing the eastern airfield. There is also room for additional apron, south of the existing
apron.
Services and Businesses
The EGAR is home to the only self-fueling facility for aircraft at EUG. This is a convenient and well-
utilized facility, and space for additional fueling activities and storage should be preserved. EGAR
currently has no FBO; however, space is available and should continue to be reserved for FBO hangars
and offices. A general aviation terminal facility should also be considered, especially as smaller aircraft
use of parallel Runway 16L/34R and EGAR continues to increase.
Because of the different aircraft storage sites and services located around the airfield, aircraft regularly
travel between EGAR and the north ramp. Currently, ground movements between EGAR and the north
ramp follow Taxiways M and N and pass into an FAA-controlled movement area, requiring pilot instruction
and procedure from the ATCT. The introduction of a non-movement area taxilane connecting Taxiway N
and the North Ramp would ease pilot ground operations and prevent aircraft from requiring ATCT
contact, making ATCT available for other duties. This taxilane would likely remove aircraft tie-downs on
the North Ramp, which could be relocated to the EGAR apron.
The introduction of acute angle (“high speed”) exit taxiway from the parallel runway would allow for the
efficient movement of aircraft arriving on Runway End 34R to Taxiways B, C, and M.
Relocating the Oregon Air & Space Museum to the EGAR area may fit well with a future realigned
Douglas Drive, especially as passenger automobile traffic enters the airfield and passes this high visibility
site.
4-26
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-27
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
On the east side of Green Hill Road, which runs east of and parallel to Runway 16L/34R, is airport owned
property which is likely available for commercial and industrial development. Some has frontage along
Green Hill Road, some along Awbrey Lane, and other along State Route 99W. These properties provide
good opportunities for the airport to provide a home for facilities which serve the community, and to make
best use of its non-aviation property by facilitating airport-compatible development. Although specific
developments for these areas are not shown, many configurations of improvements can be
accommodated, depending on the requirements and desires of the proposed improvement.
Wetland Impact
Improvements to the EGAR area, as depicted on Exhibit 4-9, include a proposed Oregon Air & Space
Museum and several other proposed structures and paved surfaces. Primary wetland impacts would
occur due to the proposed museum (estimated 0.8 acres), and potential impacts could result from areas
that haven’t been recently delineated. A 2006 delineation performed by Coyote Creek indicates that
wetlands may have expanded in the general vicinity since 2000. Exploring the property to the southwest
of Airport Road and Douglas Drive may be an option for the museum that provides less wetland impact.
3.3.4 Hollis Lane Aviation AreaExhibit 4-10
(see )
The Hollis Lane Aviation Area is the area between the two runways, and north of Taxiway C. It is home
to airport operations and maintenance, aviation-related business, and aircraft storage in box hangars.
This area was opened up with the introduction of parallel Runway 16L/34R and Taxiway C.
Aircraft Storage
The Hollis Lane Aviation Area has room for 14 box hangers. It is expected that most would house fixed-
wing aircraft, although some may store rotorcraft, as there is helicopter storage in an existing Hollis
hangar. Although there is space for T-hangars and aprons, the Hollis area is expected to be developed
with corporate hangars, each with a small apron which adjoins the existing taxilane. T-hangar
development and aircraft to be tied down are expected to be directed toward EGAR, North and South
areas.
Services and Businesses
The airports operations and maintenance facilities are located in the Hollis Lane Aviation Area. This
provides a central mid-field location to concentrate employees, equipment, and services. The airfield
landscaping facility remains outside of Hollis, in the North Ramp area, and is expected to be relocated to
Hollis as the North Ramp is redeveloped. Space is available for expansion, as airfield operations and
maintenance require.
The Hollis area is expected to be a good location for aviation-related businesses, to complement the one
currently in operation. Space exists adjacent to Taxiway C which would likely be a good fit for aircraft
maintenance and business support facilities. Although most sites have the ability to connect to airfield
pavements, others could be configured for businesses and services requiring only landside use.
4-28
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-29
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
The existing Hollis taxilane accessing the hangar sites should be extended to connect to Taxiway A.
Long-term, the existing taxilane traveling north from Taxiway C that ends after connecting to the Hollis
taxilane should be extended to connect to Taxiway A. These connections provide aircraft in the Hollis
area efficient access to primary Runway 16R/34L. A taxiway extension connecting Taxiway C and
Taxiway A, or an ARFF vehicle access lane in the same location should also be considered.
The undeveloped area, bordered by Hollis Lane on the west, Taxiway B on the east, and Taxiway C on
the south, has been and should continue to be reserved for larger aviation-related business, such as
aircraft manufacturing or a large maintenance base. This site offers roadway frontage and access to
airfield pavements. Depending on the facility desires and needs, consideration needs to be given to
ATCT visibility requirements for Taxiway B and Runway 16L/34R, which could affect the facility’s
development.
The Hollis area benefits from an abundance of airport property (located north of the existing Hollis
taxiway) that can likely be developed as opportunities present themselves. Although specific
developments for these areas are not shown, many configurations of improvements can be
accommodated, depending on the requirements and desires of the proposed improvement.
Wetland Impact
Improvements to the Hollis Area, as depicted in Exhibit 4-10, include several functional structures and
paved surfaces, as well as a potential future aviation business. There would be wetland impacts in this
area that could potentially be minimized or avoided. Most of the wetlands adjacent the current structures
have been compensated for through historic fill permits, although wetland characteristics may have
reestablished in some areas. Previous delineations indicate that there would be approximately 0.5 acres
minimum predictable impact. The lane connecting Taxiway C and Taxiway A could potentially be
shortened southerly to reduce impacts
4. Special Airport Facilities
4.1 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Facility
Exhibit 4-11
(see )
A new ARFF facility is needed to replace the current facility (which has reached the end of its useful
functional and economical life), and to meet incident response time requirements to each runway, which
cannot be attained from the current facility. To provide similar response time to each runway, midfield
alternatives were considered, instead of the current site located south of the main passenger terminal
building. The two sites considered are north of Taxiway C (“north site”), and south of Taxiway C (“south
site”). Both alternatives are presented on Exhibit 4-11.
Comparison
Both alternatives are expected to provide adequate and similar response times. As most ARFF calls are
to the passenger terminal and parking lots, the north site limits the ability of ARFF vehicles to access the
southern airfield, which would be reached either by crossing an FAA ATCT-controlled movement area, or
by traveling the lengthy route along public surface roads from the Hollis Lane Aviation Area to the
passenger terminal. The south site has height restrictions to accommodate ATCT visibility requirements,
4-30
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
but it is expected that a suitable ARFF facility can be located at this site. This supports the south site as
the preferred alternative.
The height restriction on the south site, based on an expected ARFF facility location, is approximately 26
feet. This allowable height decreases as the building extends away from the ATCT. Details of the ARFF
facility design are expected to be confirmed once that project begins.
4.2 Aircraft Deicing Facility
Exhibits 4-124-13
(see and )
The aircraft deicing (and anti-icing) process involves the application of a liquid via pressurized spray. The
majority of deicing agent not adhering to the aircraft requires containment, collection, storage, and
disposal or treatment. The introduction of one central deicing ramp eases the application and handling of
the deicing agent. As deicing generally occurs after passenger loading and before take-off, locating the
deicing facility near the main passenger terminal building and along the way to primary Runway 16R/34L
will likely prevent aircraft from having to deviate significantly from the main taxiway route.
Two alternatives are presented, both of which are expected to accommodate Boeing 757 aircraft.
Adjustment of the facility to accommodate a larger or smaller aircraft may affect the deicing facility layout.
Even though both options may disrupt aircraft ground movement, conditions requiring deicing at EUG are
generally not regular, and are generally brief. Aircraft deicing increases aircraft safety, and the seeming
inconvenience imposed by aircraft deicing on other airport activities should be second to the benefit and
convenience provided.
Implementation of either alternative may require adjustment to aircraft taxiing procedures and to the FAA
ATCT-controlled movement area. Both options are expected to have a vehicle staging area, an above-
ground equipment shed, and an underground storage system. Either location is likely compatible with co-
locating an aircraft wash facility (“wash rack”), as the collection and containment system can serve both
deicing and aircraft washing operations, benefitting the environment.
Wetland Impact
Neither alternative would have a significant affect on wetlands, although a wetland determination would
need to be made for either site.
4-31
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-32
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-33
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-34
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
Deicing Facility Alternative 1
One option is to locate the deicing facility northwest of the main passenger terminal building. This site is
along the taxiing routes from the terminal gates to Taxiway A. This location would require new pavement
(connecting Taxiways E and F) to accommodate the aircraft and the deicing vehicles, and may require
the removal or marking of some adjacent pavements as unusable to encourage aircraft separation. This
northwest site is expected to allow aircraft to pass on Taxiways A, E and F as an aircraft is being deiced.
However, the taxilane to the south of the deicing ramp (between the main apron and the deicing apron)
would likely not be able to be used when an aircraft is being deiced. It may be that taxiing practices
require additional pavement (at the northeast corner of the Taxiway A and E intersection) to
accommodate aircraft turning and travel between the taxilane and the main taxiways.
Deicing Facility Alternative 2
A second option is to locate the deicing facility southwest of the main passenger terminal building, on the
south ramp. This site is along the taxilane connecting the main apron to the south ramp aircraft parking
area. This location would likely require the reconstruction of existing taxilane and ramp pavement to
support heavier aircraft, and may require the relocation of the taxilane centerline (to the southeast) to
provide adequate separation from Taxiway G. This option would also likely require additional pavement
to connect the deicing pavements to Taxiway A. This southwest site would affect the availability of
aircraft parking on the south ramp, including aircraft in line for access to Flightcraft hangar and services.
Comparison
Alternative 1 would restrict ground movement around the main apron and passenger terminal building
while an aircraft was being deiced. Alternative 2 would do so in the event of aircraft had to queue for
deicing, and therefore is expected to have less impact on terminal area ground movements. This
supports Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
Alternative 1 may require additional pavement to accommodate taxiway turning from the deicing ramp,
onto Taxiway E, and onto Taxiway A. This would likely increase the complication of the existing
intersections of Taxiways A, E, and F with the main apron taxilanes. Alternative 2 may require additional
pavements to be improved for larger and heavier aircraft to negotiate turns onto Taxiway A, but the
improved pavements would likely be contained within the south ramp area. This supports Alternative 2 as
the preferred alternative.
Alternative 1 would introduce pavement that is likely used only for deicing. The use of the south ramp for
deicing, and the pavement improvements required to accommodate heavier aircraft, will likely result in the
increased use of this generally underutilized ramp for activities besides deicing, such as larger aircraft
parking and access to Flightcraft facilities. This supports Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.
As one improvement alternative for the main passenger terminal building would shift aircraft ground
movement and parking closer to the northwest site, the southwest site may be better suited to
accommodate expansion of the main passenger terminal building. This supports Alternative 2 as the
preferred alternative.
4-35
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
The activity and ground movement associated with aircraft washing (as the wash rack is introduced) is
expected to be more frequent and more common than that associated with deicing, and the new facility is
expected to be used more for washing than for deicing. For non-commercial and non-passenger aircraft
to access the northwest site wash rack requires use of the terminal area taxiways, taxilanes, and ramp to
travel through the main passenger terminal area. This is an opportunity to disrupt the flow of passenger
aircraft and ground support. Accessing the wash rack on the south ramp would likely require less
interference with the main passenger terminal activities. This supports Alternative 2 as the preferred
alternative.
Wetland Impact
Neither alternative would have a significant affect on wetlands, although a wetland determination would
need to be made for either site.
5. Automobile Parking and Circulation
5.1 Automobile Parking and Circulation
Exhibit 4-14
(see )
As passenger enplanements and aircraft operations at EUG are expected to increase, so is the
automobile parking. A single, logical development scenario for expansion of the main passenger terminal
automobile parking is presented. This is a refinement of previous plans to expand public and rental car
auto parking.
Needs
Chapter 3 identified the following needs: increase public automobile parking stalls from 1,276 to 2,310
(additional 1,034 stalls); increase rental car ready/return parking stalls from 144 to 245 (additional 101
stalls), and; increase rental car service/storage stalls from 116 to 280 (additional 164 stalls). An increase
is also expected to be needed for the overflow lot, from 585 to 872 (additional 287 stalls).
Main Lot
The main lot currently houses 237 short-term stalls, 1,039 long-term stalls, and 144 rental car
ready/return stalls, totaling 1,420 stalls. This needs to be increased to 2,310 public stalls and 245 rental
car stalls, totaling 2,555 stalls. The existing 1,420 stalls cover approximately 513,000 square feet. This is
a rate of approximately 360 square feet per stall (and approximately 120 stalls per acre). At this rate, an
increase of 1,135 stalls would require an additional 410,000 square feet. This area should be added
contiguous to the existing lot, and not as part of a new separate lot.
Regarding distribution of public stalls between short-term and long term, approximately 18% of the
existing public stalls are short-term. As additional stalls are added, this percent should be adjusted
downward based on lot occupancy, and on observations by and preferences of airport management to
benefit customer service and passenger convenience.
4-36
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
4-37
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
Overflow Lot
The overflow parking lot, located east of Douglas Drive, provides 585 stalls for peak passenger travel
times, such as sporting events and holiday travel. By expanding east, there is space to increase the lot
by approximately 50% to 872 stalls. Longer term expansion may also be accommodated by expanding
north and south, as space is available and need arises. As the overflow lot is not regularly used for
passenger parking, it is likely acceptable to have this lot separate from the main lot, and to continue to
offer shuttling service for passengers between this lot and the terminal building for those peak periods of
demand.
Rental Car Service Facility and Storage Lot
As the rental car service facility has fulfilled its useful and economical life, a new, modern, and larger
facility is needed to provide more service space, and to accommodate the parking of vehicles queued for
service, and those which have been serviced and await rental. The current 116 service/storage stalls at
the existing facility are expected to need to be increased to 280. This increase of 164 cannot be
accommodated at the existing site without sacrificing passenger automobile parking and the ability to
expand the same.
As giving priority to passenger automobile parking enhances customer service and passenger
convenience, the rental car service facility and storage lot (which are not required, by function, to be in
such close proximity to the terminal building) will require relocation. Rental car service/storage operations
are proposed to be relocated to the south airfield. This rental car service facility will likely see increased
activity as passenger enplanements increase at EUG. The proposed south airfield site accommodates
the future expansion of this facility, which could not be accommodated in the existing location.
As the rental car service/storage lot is relocated, this site can be converted for temporary uses until long-
term improvements are implemented. Cell phone waiting lot, taxicab queue lot, rental car ready/return
parking, and passenger automobile parking are all suitable uses for this site, until improvements for each
of these additional facilities are developed, and the existing configuration is redeveloped for expansion of
rental car ready/return and public parking.
Public Transportation and Taxicab Area
The Eugene metro area benefits from an expansive public transportation network, and as passenger
movements at EUG increase, it is expected that the use of public transportation will also increase. As the
primary EUG destination would likely be the main passenger terminal building, direct terminal access
should be provided for public transportation.
As the main parking lot is expanded to the existing rental car service/storage area, there is expected to be
space for additional taxicab parking/waiting, as an extension to the existing taxicab parking/waiting area,
located between the terminal building and the main parking lot. The current taxicab area, and the
expanded taxicab area, can also be used for public transportation transfer, between the buses and the
terminal building. However, as the proposed taxicab queue lot is introduced as part of the realigned
Douglas Drive, it may be better and desirable to convert the existing taxicab parking/waiting to serve
primarily public transportation loading and pedestrian movement, and shift taxicab queuing to the new lot.
4-38
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
Considerations
As the main automobile parking lot is expanded, it will approach Douglas Drive. In order to prevent
passenger foot traffic from having to cross active roadways to access the passenger terminal, it is
necessary to keep parking areas contiguous to each other and to the passenger terminal, and within the
boundary roadway. Passenger foot traffic does cross the active roadway at the terminal building
entrance/exit area, but the automobile traffic at this location is slowed to accommodate pedestrian loading
and crossing.
Introducing a pedestrian overpass or underpass is one way to move passenger foot traffic across an
active roadway. Such structures, often having extensive stairways, are generally perceived by the
traveling public as lengthy and difficult, especially to travelers who are hurried and carrying luggage.
Such a structure may also require an elevator on each side of the road, a feature that would increase cost
and maintenance. The perception of the traveling public is more user-friendly if parking stalls provide
access to the passenger terminal by way of a direct walk. As it is beneficial for EUG to be welcoming and
user-friendly, pedestrian travel routes beside those provided at-grade are not otherwise considered at this
time.
To keep the automobile parking within the loop access road (Douglas Drive), and to also add the required
parking stalls, requires a relocation of Douglas Drive. The space exists to relocate Douglas Drive to
accommodate the expanded parking, and the existing intersections can be adjusted to provide a safe and
continuous traffic circulation pattern.
This realignment of Douglas Drive will shift access to the main lot from the existing eastern entrance to
the northern side of the lot. This improvement will remove the need for passenger automobile traffic to
make a left turn across oncoming traffic to enter the lot, which is required by the current road
configuration. The realignment of Douglas Drive will introduce one way traffic (west of Northrop Drive), so
the only traffic movement requiring left turns will be by automobiles from southbound Northrop Drive
turning onto southbound Douglas Drive. As passenger automobile traffic is not expected to use Northrop
Drive, left turn movements across oncoming traffic should be reduced.
Introducing an elevated, underground, or multi-story parking facility is one way to provide increased
parking. Such structures are generally best suited for airports with constrained space, and with multi-
story terminal access, and such a structure would likely increase cost and maintenance. As EUG is not in
this situation, has available land, and does not desire such complication and extra cost, parking facilities
besides those located on the surface are not otherwise considered at this time.
Land between existing Douglas Drive and Taxiway B which would otherwise be available for airside
development is instead restricted in use by the visibility requirements of the Airport Traffic Control Tower
(ATCT). As surface automobile parking does not affect ATCT visibility to the extent of hangars and
terminal structures, automobile parking is expected to be a good use for this land. This compatibility was
considered in the siting of the existing overflow lot, and gives support to the proposed locations of
automobile parking and circulation improvements.
Additional parking in the main lot should be phased as needed. Initial additions will likely be able to occur
without the relocation of Douglas Drive. Relocating the rental car service facility and storage lot to the
4-39
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
south airfield area will make space available for additional parking without having to relocate Douglas
Drive.
As Douglas Drive is relocated, there is expected to be space for a cell phone waiting lot and a taxicab
queue lot. A cell phone waiting lot prevents automobiles from having to continually travel the airport loop
road to await their arriving passengers by providing a lot for the automobile to park until the arriving party
calls to notify they are ready to be met at the terminal. As opposed to short-term and long-term lots, cell
phone waiting lots generally charge no fee to the automobile, and unattended parking is not permitted. A
taxicab queue lot prevents an excessive number of cars for hire from congregating near the high-traffic
terminal building exit as passengers emerge to request transportation; by providing a lot for the
automobile to park until there is sufficient space in the terminal area for the cab to make itself available for
hire. Taxicab procedures for entering the airport and soliciting fares would have to be established
between airport management and taxicab operators. The cell phone waiting lot and taxicab queue lot
should be implemented as the opportunity and need is presented.
Convenient automobile access and parking encourages use of the Airport by the local community. For
EUG, that means ease of access to the Airport, ease of access from Airport roads to the parking lot, and
ease of foot access from the parked automobile to the terminal building. In addition to providing an
increase in automobile parking stalls, these improvements are also expected to provide an increase in
customer service, which is a major goal of the Airport.
Other Areas
The new developments associated with the non-main passenger terminal areas (North Ramp, South
Ramp, EGAR, and Hollis Area), as well as new services and businesses around the airfield, are expected
to have their own parking developments adjacent to their facility, and do not create a demand on the main
passenger terminal automobile parking lot. Parking for these facilities is not otherwise considered at this
time.
Wetland Impact
Proposed automobile parking improvements, shown Exhibit 4-14, may have the single largest impact on
wetlands. A wetland delineation (2007 Concurrence) by Coyote Creek identifies approximately 3.5 acres
that would be impacted from this design. Overflow stalls are shown with very little impact incurred. The
expansion of the parking facilities and waiting lot could initiate regulatory mitigation requirements beyond
the actual footprint of the paved areas to include the area in between the waiting lot and the expanded
parking (Increasing impact beyond 3.5 acres). Of all the wetland impacts reviewed, both potential and
realized, proposed automobile parking improvements demand the most attention for potential wetland
avoidance.
4-40
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 4
ALTERNATIVE PLAN CONCEPTS
6. Airport Property
EUG has approximately 2,340 acres of land. Most of the Airport’s property is required for the
accommodation of the facilities, and for the associated buffer and safety areas. This land has been
acquired over the years to meet the functional and operational requirements of the Airport, for safe
navigation of aircraft, and for protection of people on the ground. Preserving land for this core function is
one of the highest priorities of the Airport. Some parcels not required to support the core aviation function
in the long-term may be available for airport compatible development, for the purpose of generating
revenues which will enhance the long-term viability of the Airport. There are several land areas on the
Airport that can accommodate different types and levels of development. Following is a discussion on
some of those areas that, on a preliminary basis, appear to hold potential for such development.
Following review of the alternative plan concepts presented in this element of the Master Plan Update,
and subsequent recommendations on the preferred alternatives, this section will be revised accordingly.
As development opportunities are presented to the Airport and community, available land should be
reviewed to determine the most suitable site. Depending on the nature of the development and the
desired site, the property will likely require environmental review, and possibly mitigation, to allow for the
new improvements. The area on and around the Airport is home to drainage, wetlands, and similar
features. The Airport should continue coordination with governing agencies for the protection and
monitoring of environmentally sensitive areas.
4-41
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
NOTE: Due to material changes in the economy in 2008 and 2009,
as well as changed in the aviation industry, a Supplemental Financial
Analysis was prepared. It is presented in Appendix B and supersedes
5
5
portions of this chapter.
Chapter
Financial Feasibility Analysis
This chapter, which presents the results of the feasibility
analysis conducted, is organized as follows:
Airport Financial Structure
1.
Capital Improvement Plan
2.
Funding for the Program
3.
Historical and Projected Airport Revenues
4.
Historical and Projected Airport Operating Expenses
5.
Historical and Scheduled Debt Service
6.
Cash Flow Analysis and Overall Feasibility
7.
Sensitivity Analyses
8.
This chapter analyzes the capacity of the City of Eugene to
undertake the recommended capital improvement plan (CIP)
developed as part of this Master Plan Update. As presented
herein, an investment totaling approximately $119.38
1
million is required between fiscal years 2008 and 2028 to complete the recommended aviation safety,
preservation, security, and capacity enhancement projects included in this plan. As further described in
this chapter, the following funding sources are anticipated to be available and utilized to complete the
projects contained in this program:
Percent (%)
Funding Source Amount
of Total
FAA Entitlement $ 58,061,908 48.6%
FAA Discretionary $ 5,535,719 4.6%
Passenger Facility Charges $ 32,271,873 27.0%
Local (Capital/Operating Reserve) $ 15,901,500 13.3%
Customer Facility Charge Revenues $ 3,000,000 2.5%
Other Funding $ 4,610,000 3.9%
$ 119,380,000 100%
Of equal importance to the Airport’s ability to garner sufficient funding to complete this capital plan is the
need to understand the capability of the Airport to generate sufficient revenues to fund all anticipated
operating expenses, contributions to reserve funds, and payment of debt service. To this end, this chapter
includes an analysis of forecasted Airport operating revenues and expenditures, including annual
contributions to said reserve funds.
1
Total cost of the capital projects includes a 4% annual inflation factor.
5-1
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
The techniques utilized in this analysis are consistent with industry practices for similar studies which are
used to evaluate the feasibility of large-scale airport capital improvement plans. While it is believed that
the approach and assumptions are reasonable, it should be recognized that some assumptions regarding
future trends and events might not materialize. Achievements of the proposed capital improvement plan
as well as the operating results described herein are dependent upon the occurrences of future events
and variations may be material.
In the context of examining both the capital improvement plan and operating revenues/expenditures, this
financial feasibility analysis is based upon the following:
The Airport’s existing financial structure, airline agreements, and agreements with other major
tenants.
The historical financial performance of the Airport including its existing debt obligations.
A schedule for the implementation of proposed capital projects for the entire 20-year planning period.
Projections of enplaned passengers as presented in Chapter Two to derive Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) entitlements and Passenger Facility Charge
(PFC) revenues.
A funding plan for the capital improvement plan utilizing AIP entitlement and discretionary funds, PFC
revenues, the Airport’s Operating and Capital Reserve, Customer Facility Charge revenues and other
funding.
Historic revenues, expenses, and debt service for the Airport for the period FY 2003 through FY
2007.
Budgeted revenues, expenses, and debt service for the Airport for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Projections of revenues, expenses, and net cash flows from the operation of the Airport over the
planning period of FY 2010 through FY 2016 based on historical actual (FY 2003–2007) and
budgeted (FY 2008-2009) financial activity at the Airport.
A detailed cash flow analysis for the planning period FY 2010 through FY 2016 identifying the
2
sources and uses of funds applied to the CIP.
Detailed financial projections of revenues and expenses included in this analysis focus on the more
immediate years of the plan rather than the entire 20-year planning period; however, a detailed analysis
of the availability of AIP and PFC funds to finance this period of the program are presented in order to
provide the reader with an understanding of the feasibility of all elements of the plan.
1. Airport Financial Structure
The Airport is operated as the Airport Division of the Department of Public Works of the City of Eugene
and its financial results are reported within the composite financial statements of the City. The City
maintains discrete accounting records to account for the itemized revenues, expenses, and segregated
funds of the Airport. The City of Eugene, and therefore the Airport, operates on a modified accrual basis
for financial reporting based on a July 1 to June 30 fiscal year (FY). Accordingly, all information
2
This represents the maximum time period considered reasonable.
5-2
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
contained in this analysis is presented in terms of the Airport’s fiscal year detail as opposed to a calendar
year basis. Because the Airport operates under a modified accrual based accounting system, revenues
are recorded when they are earned and expenses are recognized when they are incurred. For purposes
of considering the historical revenues and expenditures presented in this analysis, all functional
categories and financial results parallel Exhibit 7, “Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in
Fund Net Assets” contained in the City of Eugene’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Accounting Reports
(CAFR) for Fiscal Years 2003-2007. Moreover, all ensuing fiscal years projecting anticipated operating
results align with these functional categories.
The City has established six broad functional areas for tracking Airport revenues, including the Airfield,
Terminal Area, Common Use Area, Parking Area, Administration, and Other Areas while it reports Airport
expenses in the following 10 functional areas:
1. Salaries and Labor
2. Employee Benefits
3. Maintenance & Repairs
4. Materials and Supplies
5. Rent
6. Taxes
7. Utilities
8. Contractual Services
9. Insurance
10. Central Services Administration
For the purposes of this analysis, these categories are maintained for ease of comparison. It should be
noted that both the City and Airport Division track each area in much greater detail through an established
financial reporting system; however, such detail is not required for purposes of this analysis.
The Airport has in effect an airline lease and use agreement (Use Agreement) with the scheduled airlines
serving the Airport. The agreement establishes landing fees, terminal building rentals, and terminal
building joint use and common use fees and is currently in effect through June 30, 2010. Under the terms
of the Use Agreement, the signatory airlines serving the Airport pay a landing fee calculated at a rate per
thousand pounds of landed weight, terminal building rental rates for areas for exclusive and preferential
use, joint use fees for baggage and security areas used by all airlines, and common use fees for the use
of, and services provided to, public use areas in the terminal building. The Airport collects 10 percent of
the total rental requirement for joint use areas on a pro-rata basis from each of the signatory airlines. The
remaining 90 percent of the requirement for joint use areas is collected from the airlines based on their
respective share of passenger enplanements. The total common use fee requirement for the terminal
building is collected from the airlines based on their respective share of passenger enplanements. For
FY 2009, the landing fee is $2.20 per thousand pounds of landed weight, the rental rate for exclusive and
preferential space is $29.86 per square foot per year, while joint use and customer use space are
assessed $0.58 and $1.45 per passenger, respectively. The non-signatory airline landing fee charge is
currently established at $2.75 per thousand pounds of landed weight and non-signatory airline terminal
rental fees are $37.33 per square foot per year. These fees are incorporated into an Airport Fee Schedule
5-3
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
together with fees for non-signatory airlines and other Airport users. The City of Eugene City Council
formally reviews, revises, and adopts this fee schedule annually.
This analysis assumes that the Airport will renew its Use Agreement with scheduled airlines for like rate
periods and will assess airline rates and charges that will, at a minimum, cover the airlines’ respective
shares of airfield and terminal area expenses over the entire planning period.
2. Capital Improvement Plan
All airports receiving federal AIP funding are required to maintain a current CIP with the FAA which
identifies projects to be undertaken at an airport over a specified period of time. This plan further
estimates the order of implementation as well as calculates total project costs and funding sources.
The CIP presented herein incorporates all projects recommended as part of this Master Plan Update and
is based on the near-term (FY 2008 through FY 2012), mid-term (FY 2013 through FY 2016), and long-
Exhibit 5-1
term (FY 2016 through FY 2028) planning periods (and shown on ). The near-term period
includes projects currently addressed in the Airport’s existing CIP on file with the FAA, approved PFC
applications 06-08-C-00-EUG and 08-09-C-00-EUG, the Airport’s Customer Facility Charge (CFC)
program, and the adopted City of Eugene Capital Improvement Plan. For the period FY 2013-2016, the
most critical airport capacity and safety needs are programmed while the long-term period (FY 2016
through FY 2028) projects correspond to those facility requirements identified in previous chapters.
Table 5-1.
The CIP and its corresponding cost estimates are presented in Cost estimates depicted in this
table are based on a planning level of detail. While accurate for master planning purposes, actual project
costs will likely vary from these planning estimates once project design and engineering estimates are
developed. Costs as shown in Table 5-1 have been escalated for inflation (4% annually) to more
accurately reflect anticipated construction-year dollar amounts. These costs also include contingencies
and design and construction management costs. Each project was analyzed for AIP and PFC funding
eligibility and a preliminary funding scenario was developed for each project from AIP, PFC, local, and
private funding sources. As stated previously, the total cost of the CIP is estimated to be approximately
$119.4million.
5-4
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
rovement Plan ital ImCa
pp
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5-6
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5-7
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5-8
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5-9
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
As shown in Table 5-1, the CIP is projected to be funded by outlays from the following sources:
$58,061,908 from AIP entitlement funds, $5,534,719 from AIP discretionary funds, $32,271,873 from PFC
revenue (not inclusive of debt service on bonds issued for terminal and access road improvements),
$15,901,500 from local sources (the Airport’s Operating and Capital Reserve and Depreciation Reserve
Funds), $3,000,000 from Customer Facility Charge revenues, and $4,610,000 from other funding sources
including a $110,000 grant from “Connect Oregon” in FY 2008 for the Phase II Air Cargo Ramp
Expansion Project, as well as a $4.5 million allocation from the FAA’s Facilities and Equipment Program
in FY 2021 for a new FAA air traffic control facility.
The CIP presented in Table 5-1 does not include certain projects, such as general aviation hangars and
private business developments, which may be funded by other private sources. For purposes of this
analysis, it was assumed that tenant-financed projects would not be constructed until demand warrants
(i.e., demand and unit user revenues make it feasible to develop and finance additional hangar facilities).
3. Funding for the Program
Based on the descriptions of the capital improvement projects presented in Table 5-1, the phasing of
these projects, their associated costs, and eligible funding amounts as identified in the previous sections,
a proposed funding plan for the Airport’s CIP was developed. Federal participation in Airport capital
development is based on the Airport Improvement Program as re-authorized in 2003. This analysis
assumes continuance of AIP and PFC funding through the planning period without major changes.
However, in the past, these programs have experienced fluctuations in levels of funding and interruptions
in funding availability; therefore, it is imperative for Airport management to consider maintaining reserve
funds to support Airport activities should such fluctuations and interruptions occur in the future. It is
further recommended that since a host of the projects described in this plan are contingent upon sufficient
aviation demand to support their ongoing operations upon completion, Airport management should
closely examine the true need for their implementation prior to committing to undertaking project design
and/or construction. In developing the funding plan for capital improvements, the controlling objectives
were to maximize the use of resources from AIP and PFC funds and to minimize Airport/local funding
requirements.
It is assumed that costs for the CIP will be generated from a combination of the following potential funding
sources:
Federal AIP Grants
Passenger Facility Charges
Airport Operating and Capital Reserves
Customer Facility Charges
Private Funding
These funding sources are discussed in further detail below.
5-10
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
3.1 Federal AIP Grants
Federal grants for the FY 2008 – 2028 Eugene Airport capital improvement plan are anticipated to be
made available through the FAA’s AIP program. The current AIP legislation provides both entitlement
funds (based on annual enplaned passenger levels) and discretionary funds for eligible projects
undertaken by an Airport sponsor. Projects that are eligible for FAA AIP funding were determined based
on guidelines contained in FAA Order 5100.38A, Airport Improvement Handbook. As a general rule, only
those Airport projects that are related to non-revenue producing facilities, such as airfield construction,
public areas of a terminal, and land acquisition, are eligible for federal funding. Under most
circumstances, projects that qualify for AIP funding are eligible for up to 95 percent of total project costs.
Terminal development is eligible in non-revenue producing space for airports categorized as small hubs
and non-hubs at 95 percent of eligible costs.
Under the AIP program, each primary airport is apportioned no less than $650,000 per year; an airport’s
annual entitlement funds under the current program are determined according to the following formula:
$7.80 for each passenger boarding up to 50,000 passengers
$5.20 for each additional passenger boarding up to 100,000 passengers
$2.60 for each additional passenger boarding up to 500,000 passengers
$0.65 for each additional passenger boarding up to 1,000,000 passengers
$0.50 for each additional passenger boarding from 1,000,001 passengers and up
Based on recent historical and projected annual enplanement levels at the Airport, estimates of the
Table 5-2
Airport’s federal entitlements for the period FY 2008 through FY 2028 are presented in . The
projected entitlement funds presented in this table for each year are based on total enplanements at the
Airport from the calendar year two years prior (i.e., entitlements for FY 2008 are based on enplanements
from FY 2006).
As shown in Table 5-2, the Airport is projected to be eligible for a total of $65,369,084 in AIP entitlement
Table 5-3
funds over the planning period. As shown in ,a total of $41 million of entitlement funding is to
be used for the projects included in the CIP. Since the availability of AIP funding is expected to exceed
the use of such aid, it is assumed that there will likely be adequate AIP entitlement funds to implement all
anticipated projects presented in this CIP.
The AIP program also allows for discretionary funding to be made available from the FAA to provide
financial support for major capacity or safety-related projects. The CIP, as presented in Table 5-1,
anticipates FAA discretionary funds totaling approximately $5,534,719 being made available for the
Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) Facility, Runway 34L/16R Overlay and airfield lighting upgrades,
and the Aircraft Deicing Facility. The likelihood of receiving the required level of discretionary funding is
considered extremely high given the importance of these projects, in terms of improved safety and
preservation of existing airfield infrastructure. In fact, the FAA has already programmed funding into its
overall system for this work.
5-11
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Table 5-2
Eugene Airport
Master Plan Update
PROJECTED AIRPORT ENTITLEMENT FUNDS
AND PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE REVENUE
Projected Passenger
FiscalProjectedEnplanementsEntitlementFacilityTotal
YearEnplanements 1/(2 yrs. Prior)FundsCharges 2/Funds
2008381,304360,258$2,653,342$1,506,532$4,159,874
2009391,827370,781$2,708,061$1,548,108$4,256,170
2010402,350381,304$2,762,781$1,589,685$4,352,466
2011412,873391,827$2,817,500$1,631,261$4,448,762
2012419,417402,350$2,872,220$1,657,117$4,529,337
2013425,961412,873$2,926,940$1,682,972$4,609,912
2014432,505419,417$2,960,968$1,708,827$4,669,796
2015439,049425,961$2,994,997$1,734,683$4,729,680
2016445,593432,505$3,029,026$1,760,538$4,789,564
2017456,807439,049$3,063,055$1,804,844$4,867,899
2018468,021445,593$3,097,084$1,849,151$4,946,235
2019479,235456,807$3,155,396$1,893,457$5,048,854
2020490,449468,021$3,213,709$1,937,764$5,151,473
2021501,663479,235$3,272,022$1,982,071$5,254,093
2022512,877490,449$3,330,335$2,026,377$5,356,712
2023524,091501,663$3,382,162$2,070,684$5,452,845
2024535,305512,877$3,396,740$2,114,990$5,511,730
2025546,519524,091$3,411,318$2,159,297$5,570,615
2026557,736535,305$3,425,897$2,203,615$5,629,511
2027568,950546,519$3,440,475$2,247,921$5,688,396
2028580,164557,736$3,455,057$2,292,228$5,747,285
TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE$65,369,084$39,402,122$104,771,206
Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc.
Note: 1/ Includes charters.
2/ Assumes a net collection of $4.39 per eligible enplaned passenger.
Assumes 90 percent of the Airport's enplanements are eligible for PFC collection.
5-12
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Table 5-3
Eugene Airport
Master Plan Update
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FUNDING ANALYSIS
CumulativeCumulative
EntitlementPFC
CapitalRequiredFundingAnticipatedPassengerRequiredFundingRequiredAnticipated
ImprovementFAASurplusFAAFacilityPFCSurplusLocalOther
YeaCostsEntitlements(Shortfall)Discretionary 1/Charges 2/Funds(Shortfall)Funds 2/Funds 1/
r
2008$3,950,000$2,612,500$40,842$0$1,506,532$1,200,000$3,028,382$27,500$110,000
2009$10,780,000$2,641,000$107,903$4,180,000$4,576,490$0$4,576,490$959,000$3,000,000
2010$9,550,000$2,762,781$0$1,132,219$6,166,175$3,455,000$2,711,175$0$0
2011$15,200,000$2,817,500$0$222,500$4,342,437$1,177,420$3,165,017$0$0
2012$6,200,000$2,600,000$272,220$0$4,822,133$1,097,420$3,724,713$0$0
2013$2,000,000$1,900,000$1,299,160$0$5,407,685$1,117,420$4,290,265$0$0
2014$11,000,000$2,960,968$0$0$5,999,092$1,540,092$4,459,000$0$0
2015$1,500,000$1,425,000$1,569,997$0$6,193,683$1,615,092$4,578,591$0$0
2016$800,000$285,000$4,314,023$0$6,339,129$1,555,092$4,784,037$500,000$0
2017$1,000,000$950,000$6,427,078$0$6,588,881$1,590,092$4,998,789$0$0
2018$4,200,000$3,097,084$5,534,162$0$6,847,940$1,750,092$5,097,848$0$0
2019$5,200,000$2,600,000$6,089,558$0$6,991,306$1,540,092$5,451,214$2,600,000$0
2020$8,600,000$3,213,709$1,563,267$0$7,388,978$2,400,092$4,988,886$0$0
2021$4,500,000$0$3,855,502$0$6,970,956$1,540,092$5,430,864$0$4,500,000
2022$1,800,000$0$7,185,837$0$7,457,241$1,540,092$5,917,149$1,800,000$0
2023$16,000,000$3,382,162$0$0$7,987,833$2,137,093$5,850,740$0$0
2024$300,000$285,000$3,111,740$0$7,965,730$2,137,092$5,828,638$15,000$0
2025$10,800,000$3,411,318$1,123,058$0$7,987,934$2,137,092$5,850,842$5,400,000$0
2026$800,000$760,000$3,788,955$0$8,054,457$2,177,092$5,877,365$0$0
2027$200,000$190,000$7,039,429$0$8,125,287$2,147,092$5,978,195$0$0
2028$5,000,000$3,455,057$5,744,486$0$8,270,423$2,387,092$5,883,331$0$0
CIP TOTAL$119,380,000$41,349,079$16,712,829$5,534,719$36,240,641$11,301,500$7,610,000
Sources: City of Eugene, Department of Public Works
Mead & Hunt, Inc.
Notes: 1/ It is anticipated that no surplus/shortfall will be experieced in these revenue sources over the planning period.
2/ A detailed cash-flow analysis that examines the Airport's ability to fund the required local share of project costs
from the Operating and Capital and Depreciation Reserve Funds that the Airport maintains will be presented later in this analysis.
5-13
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
While such action is considered favorable, there is no guarantee that this aid will be made available until
such time as the FAA releases grants for these respective projects. In addition, it should be noted that
the FAA may require the Airport to fully obligate its entitlement funds prior to receipt of any AIP
discretionary funding.
3.2 Passenger Facility Charges
In addition to AIP funding, the Airport has the ability to levy an Airport Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) to
provide locally generated funds for implementation of its capital plan. PFC collection is authorized under
the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations, the Passenger Facility Charge Program (14 CFR, Part 158). PFCs are collected for
enplaning passengers at an airport and these funds are used to finance all or portions of capital
improvements that are identified by the Airport Sponsor and approved by the FAA. To be eligible for PFC
funding, a project must preserve or enhance safety, security, or capacity of the national air transportation
system; reduce or mitigate airport noise from an airport; or provide opportunities for enhanced
competition between or among air carriers.
The Airport began collecting PFCs in 1993. Since that time, the Airport has completed nine PFC
applications with a total value of $21.2 million and is currently levying and collecting a $4.50 PFC. It is
assumed that for purposes of this analysis the Airport will continue to collect a $4.50 PFC over the entire
planning period and will use revenues to implement eligible Airport improvement projects through FY
3
2028. The Airport’s existing authority to impose a PFC expires in December 2011. Moreover, the
Terminal Ramp Rehabilitation Project (Phase I) as well as the Relocate Baggage Screening Area project
are currently included in an approved PFC application and are slated to be undertaken in Fiscal Years
2009 and 2010 respectively.
Table 5-2 indicates that PFC collections for the Airport are projected to total $39.4 million over the
planning period while Table 5-3 reveals that $36.2 million in PFC revenue, including anticipated debt
service payments, is anticipated to be used to fund portions of the projects identified in this CIP. Given
the scope and magnitude of the Terminal – Phase II – Airport Administration & Baggage project ($9.6
million PFC revenues), the Concourse B Expansion ($1.9 million PFC revenues), the Concourse C –
Phase I Expansion ($6.7 million PFC revenues), and improvements to the Airport Access Road ($1.6
million PFC revenues), it is proposed that the Airport consider issuing bonds backed by its future stream
of PFC revenues to retire this debt and complete this work in a timely fashion. Table 5-8in Section 6.
Debt Service provides a debt service schedule for bonds issued in FY 2010 for the Terminal Phase II
project, Concourse B expansion and Access Road improvements projects. In addition, this table
assumes that in FY 2014 additional bonds will be issued for the Concourse C – Phase I expansion.
These debt service assumptions are tracked in Table 5-3 in the annual “Required PFC Fund” calculations
along with projects scheduled to be completed on a pay-as-you-go basis. Of the $36.2 million in PFC
revenue slated for use, approximately $19.8 million is to be utilized to back the issuance of bonds for
improvements to the air carrier access road as well as terminal building. As noted on Table 5-3, the
Airport is expected to generate sufficient PFC revenues to retire all debt issued for this work and
complete other pay-as-you-go projects as previously delineated in Table 5-1 provided airport
3
A separate financing scenario will be completed assuming a $7.00 PFC, based on the likelihood Congress will ultimately allow this
higher collection amount.
5-14
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
enplanements attain the growth projected in this plan. Finally, it will be necessary for the Airport to
maintain its authority to impose a PFC for at least another five (5) years beyond the planning period since
approximately $21.0 million in outstanding payments will remain on these debt instruments at the close of
Fiscal Year 2028. At that time, the Airport is forecasted to have a balance of approximately $4.7 million in
PFC revenues to utilize toward retiring these bonds.
3.3 Airport Operating and Capital Reserves
The Airport currently maintains an Operating and Capital Reserves Fund, which is utilized to underwrite
the local share requirements of Airport projects, not funded with PFC or private capital. This fund is also
used to address unexpected operating expenses. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that this
fund is used to meet the local obligation for AIP and PFC eligible projects as well as for work deemed
ineligible for AIP and PFC funding. Based upon information obtained from Airport management, it is
assumed that a balance of $3.3 million exists in this fund as of July 1, 2008.
A cash flow analysis (see Table 5-10presented in Section 7. Cash Flow Analysis and Overall Feasibility)
was performed to identify the likely impact that local share funding requirements of the recommended CIP
from the Airport’s Operating and Capital Reserves would have on the cumulative balance of that fund. In
this cash flow analysis, the annual beginning balance of the Airport’s Operating and Capital Reserve
Fund was reduced by the amount required to fund the local requirements of the Airport’s CIP projects for
that year. The Airport’s projected net revenue was then added to the Airport’s Operating and Capital
Reserve Fund to estimate the year-end balance of that fund. The year-end balance of the fund was then
carried over to the succeeding fiscal year and the same process was followed. The results of this
analysis are presented and examined in Section 7.Cash Flow Analysis and Overall Feasibility.
3.4 Customer Facility Charge
In 2006, the City authorized establishing a Customer Facility Charge (CFC) for all rental car transactions
occurring at the Airport. Rental car companies collect the fees on behalf of the City and remit them to the
Airport for use on capital expenditures and/or to fund operating expenditures associated with facilities
constructed for the sole benefit of rental car customers. The Airport’s CFC is currently set at $2 per
transaction day and the Airport collects approximately $300,000/year from this dedicated revenue source.
Funds accruing to the Airport as the result of this assessment are earmarked for the construction of a
consolidated Rental Car Service and Storage Facility in FY 2009. Upon completion of construction, the
Airport intends to continue to impose this fee in order to provide sufficient revenues for the operation,
maintenance, and reserve funds required for this facility. It is anticipated that upon occupancy of the
facility, the Airport may reassess the level of CFC and adjust it accordingly to ensure that the revenue
generated each year does not exceed authorized uses.
3.5 Other Funding
Besides the sources of revenue identified to support the Capital Improvement Plan, other non-traditional
means may be available, and should be explored. The FAA's Facilities & Equipment division has
contributed to navigational aids at Eugene, and is expected to continue to be a funding partner for such
improvements. The State of Oregon's ConnectOregon program, which recently funded the airport cargo
facility, is expected to be renewed on an approximate biannual basis, and many of Eugene's projects
could be candidates for ConnectOregon funds. And although relatively new to the airport environment,
5-15
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
the Transportation Security Administration may also become a financial source for airport improvements.
Other public entities may be interested in partnering with the Eugene Airport for joint-use improvements.
As developments are proposed, these and other local, state, and national funding sources should be
evaluated.
3.6 Private Funding
In addition to projects listed in the Capital Improvement Plan, privately-funded improvements are also
expected at the Airport. Aviation-related business, aircraft maintenance and manufacturing, flight training
and education, museums, and hangars for FBO's, general aviation, and corporate aircraft are all welcome
privately-funded developments. It is estimated that $200 million of these types of projects could occur at
Eugene over the next 20 years. These improvements would allow the Eugene Airport to continue its
support of aviation activity, expand its service to the community, and increase its contribution to economic
development.
4.
Historical and Projected Airport Revenues
Table 5-4
depicts the Airport’s historical revenues from FY 2003 through FY 2009. As shown in Table 4,
the major source of non-airline revenue for the Airport during this period has been the public parking
facility while rental auto concession fees have also represented relatively significant portions of the
Airport’s revenue base in these years. Collectively, these sources of revenue are anticipated to account
for approximately 72 percent of non-airline fees during fiscal year 2009.
It is noteworthy that between FY 2003 and FY 2009, the Airport reduced its reliance on airline rents and
fees resulting in a more diverse mix of overall revenue. In FY 2003, total airline revenues, including
landing fees, Terminal Building Common Use/Preferential/Exclusive rents totaled $3,141,524
representing 47.5 percent of all revenue collected by the Airport in that year. In 2009, airline revenue is
expected to total $2,591,611, comprising only 35.5 percent of total airport revenues. This decrease in
reliance on airline fees and rents created a decrease in a key efficiency benchmark for airlines; the airline
cost per enplaned passenger. This indicator is utilized to convey the relative “cost of doing business” for
an airline at an airport as reflected in its ability to spread its expense associated with renting and utilizing
airport facilities among its passengers.
For Eugene, this indicator dropped from $7.21 per enplaned passenger in FY 2004 to $6.46 per enplaned
passenger in FY 2009 (budgeted). Finally, it should also be noted that because of the growth in airport
parking revenue and rental car concession fees, the Airport’s overall revenue base expanded 10.3
percent or approximately 2 percent per year during this period.
Estimates of the Airport’s future revenues were developed based on historical trends from FY 2003
through FY 2008, the terms of the Airport’s Use Agreement with the signatory airlines; the Airport’s FY
Table 5-5
2009 adopted budget, as well as an analysis of future revenue potential of the Airport. presents
budgeted revenues for FY 2009 and projected revenues for the period from FY 2010 through FY 2016,
the end of the mid-term planning period for the Airport’s CIP.
5-16
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Table 5-4
Eugene Airport
Master Plan Update
HISTORICAL AIRPORT REVENUES
HistoricalBudgetProposed
2003200420052006200720082009
AIRLINE REVENUES
LANDING AREA
Airline Landing Fees - Scheduled 967,0841,133,7791,119,7031,138,042970,393976,5161,086,733
COMMON USE AREAS
Airline Common Use Fee524,756492,486515,709605,576671,876704,633710,686
Airline Security Charges523,962110,837215,492133,134114,774123,254162,084
TERMINAL AREA
Airline Leased & Joint Use Areas754,601739,000835,190926,170678,011708,426632,108
PREVIOUS YEAR AIRLINE ADJUSTMENTS371,121(144,963)(91,535)(67,982)(258,977)00
Total Airline Revenue$3,141,524$2,331,139$2,594,559$2,734,940$2,176,077$2,512,829$2,591,611
NON-AIRLINE REVENUES
AIRFIELD AREA
Hangar Rentals180,820174,168128,166152,146230,439178,175180,367
Fuel Flow Fees53,48749,87154,24251,65349,53453,16963,000
Tie-Down Fees10,94210,78410,64910,28110,22010,63510,335
Fixed Based Operators57,26860,23760,21563,59461,44463,40856,135
Ground Fuel1,5111,68613,0948,3932,2062,0152,310
Non-Airline Landing Fees128,111107,04585,675102,42381,298106,000106,000
TERMINAL AREA
Rental Auto Concessions656,899679,118773,335803,351813,260857,480857,876
Food and Beverage Services142,483118,73753,28162,08256,17664,00064,000
Miscellaneous Terminal Facilities205,324187,232196,573226,375229,060287,457266,457
Security-LEO Reimbursement/Fingerprints338,865 324,806 323,578 278,178 318,524 302,679 210,108
PARKING AREA
Public Parking Facility1,579,9861,754,8452,126,5432,308,3282,378,7512,307,4082,525,206
ADMINISTRATION
Administative Revenue (Interest)269,23321,606
OTHER AREAS
Other Building Rentals 142,057 240,865 215,439 228,917 236,530 219,618 220,905
Other Land Rentals94,774100,83693,89783,80778,12878,89190,559
Miscellaneous Revenue (119,201)13,431119,143(64,759)155,47468,64051,392
Total Non-Airline Revenue$3,473,326$3,823,661$4,253,829$4,314,769$4,970,276$4,621,181$4,704,650
TOTAL AIRPORT REVENUE$6,614,850$6,154,800$6,848,388$7,049,709$7,146,353$7,134,010$7,296,261
303,864323,244361,272356,830363,785381,974 401,073
AIRLINE COST PER ENPLANEMENT$10.34$7.21$7.18$7.66$5.98$6.58$6.46
Source: City of Eugene, Department of Public Works
CAGR = Compounded annual growth rate.
5-17
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5-18
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Revenue at the Airport consists of both operating revenue generated through the operating cycle of the
Airport and non-operating revenue generated through such sources as investment income and other non-
aviation related rentals and fees. For purposes of this analysis, Airport revenues have been classified as
airline revenue and non-airline revenue, with projections made by major source of revenue within each of
the following classifications:
Airline Landing Fees
•
Airline Common Use Fees
•
Airline Lease and Joint Use Fees
•
Airfield Area Revenue
•
Rental Auto Concession Fees
•
Food and Beverage Revenue
•
Miscellaneous Terminal Facility Revenue
•
Public Parking Facility Revenue
•
Other Revenue
•
Airline Landing Fees
4.1
Scheduled commercial airlines operating at the Airport are currently charged a landing fee of $2.20 per
thousand pounds of landed weight. Pursuant to the provisions of the current Airport and airline use
agreement, the airfield cost center ratemaking methodology is based upon a residual approach which is
calculated by dividing estimated annual landed weight of signatory aircraft arrivals by the net airfield cost
allocated to the airlines (both direct and indirect costs of the Airfield less other Airfield Revenues). Total
airline landing fee revenue for FY 2009 is budgeted to be $1,086,733. Projections of future airline landing
fee revenues are based on projected net costs allocated to the signatory airlines each fiscal year. As
shown in Table 5-5, landing fee revenues for scheduled airline activity at the Airport are projected to
increase from $1,086,733 in FY 2009 to $1,248,315 in FY 2016, representing a compounded annual
increase of approximately 2.0 percent.
Airline Common Use Fees
4.2
Common use fees represent charges to airlines for a portion of the total expense required to maintain
public areas in the terminal building. The total common use fee requirement for the terminal building is
collected from the airlines based on their respective share of passenger enplanements. The collection of
an airline common use fee was initiated in FY 1997 under the terms of the Use Agreement with the
airlines. Airline common use fee revenue has increased from $524,756 in FY 2003 to $710,686 in FY
2009 and as shown in Table 5-5, this source of revenue is projected to increase from $710,686 in FY
2009 to $1,000,007 in FY 2016.
Airline Lease and Joint Use Fees
4.3
Rentals and fees from airline leased areas and joint use area fees represent Airport revenue from areas
used exclusively, preferentially, or jointly by airlines operating at the Airport. Airport terminal building
rental rates, which represent annual fees applied for areas rented by a tenant for exclusive and
preferential use, are currently set at $29.86 per square foot. Airlines are also charged for their joint use of
other areas and facilities in the terminal building. Airline joint use fees are paid to cover the cost of
5-19
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
operating baggage and security areas used by all airlines. The Airport allocates 10 percent of the total
rental requirement for these joint use areas equally among the airlines, and the remaining 90 percent of
the requirement to the airlines based on their respective share of passenger enplanements at the Airport.
Airline lease and joint use fees fluctuated between $756,601 in FY 2003 to $632,108 in FY 2009 and as
shown in Table 5-5, this category of Airport revenue is projected to increase to $836,501 in FY 2016. For
purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the airlines are charged for the cost of two (2) additional
Airport employees associated with the Phase II Terminal Building Expansion Project in FY 2012.
Accordingly, a compounded annual increase of 2.0 percent was applied to revenue estimates for each
year between 2009 and 2016, while an additional $100,000 in airline lease and joint use fees is expected
to be collected starting in FY 2012 to recoup the Airport’s costs for personnel associated with this project.
Airfield Area Revenue
4.4
For purposes of this analysis, airfield area revenue includes the following: revenues collected from non-
airline (charter and air cargo carriers) landing fees, the rental of conventional and T-hangar lease sites
and facilities from private and corporate lessees, revenues from fixed base operators (FBOs) leases, site
and facility fees, revenues from per gallon fuel flowage fees on all aircraft fuel sold at the Airport, and
revenues from the rental of aircraft tie-down facilities. Total airfield area revenues decreased from
$432,139 in FY 2003 to $418,147 in FY 2009, primarily due to a decrease in non-airline landing fees.
Total airfield area revenues are projected to increase from $418,147 in FY 2009 to $490,008 in FY 2016,
representing a compounded annual growth rate of approximately 2.8 percent and spurred by increases in
hangar rental revenue and collection of non-airline landing fees during this period.
Rental Auto Concession Revenue
4.5
Rental auto concession revenue includes all fees associated with rental auto agency operations at the
Airport including terminal area counter space, percentage of sales fees, and ready/return and
service/storage area parking spaces. Rental auto concession revenues have increased from $656,899 in
FY 2003 to $857,876 in FY 2009. Projections of future rental auto concession revenues were developed
based on projected passenger activity levels and assumptions regarding the service/storage area
expansions identified in the CIP. As shown in Table 5-5, rental auto concession revenue is projected to
increase from $857,876 in FY 2009 to $1,207,118 FY 2016, representing a compounded annual growth
rate of approximately 5.0 percent.
Food and Beverage Service Revenue
4.6
Food and beverage service revenue represents minimum rental charges and percentage fees collected
from restaurants located in the terminal building. This source of revenue decreased significantly between
FY 2003 and FY 2009 due to the impacts of September 11, 2001 and decreased flow of customers
available to concessionaires beyond the security checkpoint since this area was restricted to ticketed-only
passengers. During the past six years, the Airport completed modifications to its food and beverage
concession space to allow for increased retail offerings prior to passenger security screening. While food
and beverage service revenue dropped sharply between FY 2003 and FY 2005, some modest increases
have occurred since that time. It is expected that this source of revenue will increase from a proposed FY
2009 level of $64,000 to $90,054 in 2016; representing a compounded annual growth rate of
approximately 5 percent.
5-20
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Miscellaneous Terminal Facility Revenue
4.7
This revenue category includes rent receipts for the gift shop as well as advertising space in the Airport’s
terminal building and revenue from services made available to passengers in the terminal including
automatic teller machines and baggage cart rentals. Revenues from these sources have increased from
$205,324 in FY 2003 to $266,457 in FY 2009. As shown on Table 5-5, it is anticipated that these revenue
streams will increase from a proposed level of $266,457 in FY 2009 to $350,639 in FY 2016 assuming
continuation of a 4 percent annual growth rate in this category of revenue.
Public Parking Facility Revenue
4.8
Public parking facility revenues represent the Airport’s share of fees collected for all public parking
facilities. Under a contractual agreement with Standard Parking Company, the Airport pays a certain
percentage of total parking revenue to this private concessionaire for management of its public parking
operations. This concession agreement is scheduled to expire in June 2010 and the Airport currently pays
8.74 percent of total parking revenue to Standard Parking Company under this agreement. Airport parking
revenues from this contractual arrangement increased from $1,579,986 in FY 2003 to an expected level
of $2,525,206 in FY 2009; translating to a compound annual growth rate of 8 percent during this period. It
should be noted that between FY 2003 and FY 2009, the Airport constructed an additional 300 stalls.
Future projections of public parking revenue are based on projections of passenger activity. As shown in
Table 5-5, public parking revenue is projected to increase from an expected level of $2,525,206 in FY
2009 to $3,796,976 in FY 2016.
Other Revenue
4.9
The other revenue category is comprised mostly of revenues collected from the rental of Airport owned
lands to area farmers and building office space to businesses. This category of revenue increased from
$236,831 in FY 2003 to $362,856 in FY 2009. Future levels of other revenue were projected individually
based on various factors including Airport expansion plans, tenant lease agreements, and projected
changes in passenger activity levels at the Airport. This source of revenue is projected to reach $423,876
in FY 2016.
Summary of Airport Revenue
4.10
As shown in Table 5-5, total revenues at Eugene Airport are projected to increase from $7,296,261 in FY
2009 to $9,636,043 in FY 2016; representing a compounded annual growth rate of approximately 4.0
percent. These projections were developed by examining several key business factors that have an
impact on major elements of Airport revenue; therefore, actual levels of future revenue may differ from
these projections. Examples of some factors that could impact future levels of Airport revenue include
changes in the level of passenger activity at the Airport and the entry of another airline.
Additional revenue opportunities, generated through the lease of land not needed for aviation purposes,
are presented in Section 8.3.
5-21
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5.
Historical and Projected Airport Operating Expenses
Table 5-6
The Airport’s historical operating expenses for FY 2003 through FY 2009 are presented in . As
shown in this table, personnel expenses (including salaries, labor, and employee benefits) have
consistently represented the largest category of Airport expenditures over these years. It is expected that
during FY 2009 personnel costs will total $3,680,839 and represent approximately 56 percent of all
operating expenses of the Airport. The next largest components of total Airport operating expenditures
are materials and supplies ($817,951), contractual services ($519,040), utilities ($415,329), maintenance
and repair ($308,233), and rent ($224,500).
Estimates of the Airport’s future operating expenses were developed based on a review of historical
trends, the Airport’s FY 2009 expenses, and incremental adjustments that might occur due to facility
Table 5-7
expansions planned at the Airport over the projection period. presents actual FY 2007
expenses, budgeted expenses for fiscal years 2008-2009, and projected operating expenses for the
period FY 2010 through FY 2016. For purposes of this analysis, expenses at the Airport are examined in
the following classifications:
Salaries and Labor
Employee Benefits
Maintenance and Repairs
Utilities
Contractual Services
Insurance
Summary of Projected Total Airport Expense
These operating expense categories represent all expenses associated with the day-to-day operations of
the Airport. Each expense category, and the assumptions used to project expenses for each, is
discussed in the following sections.
5.1 Salaries and Labor
Salaries and labor represent personnel expenditures for Airport management, administrative, fire
department, and operations and maintenance employee salaries and wages. Between FY 2003 and FY
2009, these costs increased from $1,946,366 to $2,379,173. As shown in Table 5-7, future salaries and
labor expenses are projected to increase from $2,379,173 in FY 2009 to $3,000,276 in FY 2016,
representing a compounded annual increase of approximately 3.0 percent. These projections were
developed based on an estimated rate of inflation as well as the need to hire two (2) additional Airport
Maintenance Workers in FY 2012 to support the expanded terminal building.
5.2 Employee Benefits
Employee benefits expenses include fringe benefit costs, such as employee wage-related taxes, health
care, and employee pension. Employee benefits increased from $899,385 in FY 2003 to $1,301,666 in
FY 2009. This category of Airport operating expense is projected to increase approximately 6.0 percent
per year from FY 2009 to FY 2016 from $1,301,666 in FY 2009 to $2,005,401 in FY 2016.
5-22
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5-23
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5-24
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5.3Maintenance and Repairs
Maintenance and repairs expenses represent the cost of materials and supplies needed for maintaining
and repairing all of the Airport’s grounds and facilities as well as charges for minor equipment outlays.
Maintenance and repairs expenses grew at an annual rate of 9.0 percent between the years of FY 2003
and FY 2009 increasing from $179,876 to $308,233. As shown in Table 5-7, this category of expense is
projected to increase from $308,233 in FY 2009 to $762,625 in FY 2016. This growth includes a $100,000
increase in FY 2009 to account for the steep rise in gas prices and further anticipates additional
expenditures following the construction of the first portion of the terminal expansion ($50,000 in FY 2014).
5.4 Utilities
Expenditures captured in the “Utilities” category include charges for electricity for terminal and airfield
facilities, natural gas for heating, and water and sewage services. These expenditures have ranged from
a low of $329,045 in FY 2003 to a high of $415,329 in FY 2009, resulting in a compounded annual
increase of approximately 4.0 percent. As shown in Table 5-7, utilities are projected to increase from
$415,329 in FY 2009 to $546,545 in FY 2016, representing a compounded annual increase of
approximately 4.0 percent. Future utilities expenses were projected based on historical actual costs and
the anticipated costs associated with proposed expansion of airfield and terminal facilities.
5.5 Contractual Services
Contractual services expenses represent the annual costs of providing contract services to aid in the
efficient operation of the Airport. This expense has fluctuated over the last seven fiscal years, ranging
from a low of $343,784 in FY 2004 to high of $629,518 in FY 2003. For purposes of this analysis, future
contractual service expense is projected based on the total expense for this category anticipated to occur
in FY 2009. As shown in Table 5-7, contractual services expenses are projected to increase from
$519,040 in FY 2009 to $706,342 in FY 2016, representing a compounded annual increase of
approximately 5.0 percent.
5.6 Insurance
Insurance expenses are comprised of the costs of providing liability, property, and other insurance
coverage to account for the risks associated with the operation of and damage to Airport facilities.
Insurance expenses have increased from $122,609 in FY 2003 to $131,047 in FY 2009. Based on
discussion with Airport management, FY 2009 insurance expenses were used as the base for future
projections of this category of expense and as shown in Table 5-7, thus, this category of expense is
projected to increase from $131,047 in FY 2009 to $140,500 in FY 2016.
5.7 Summary of Projected Total Airport Expense
In addition to the previously described operating expenses, the Airport incurs expenses that are
considered non-operational in nature. These expenses are presented in Table 5-6 and Table 5-7 as
“Central Services Allocation” and represents indirect costs allocated to the Airport by the City of Eugene
for support services, such as Information Technology. The City, through the preparation of a cost
allocation plan, estimates these annual costs for the Airport and as shown in Table 5-6, these
5-25
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
expenditures increased from $360,000 in FY 2003 to $503,000 in FY 2009. Based upon discussions with
Airport Management, Central Service Allocation costs are projected to increase more modestly between
FY2009 and FY 2016, increasing from $503,000 to approximately $618,627 or by 3.0 percent per year
during this period.
Aggregating operating expenses with non-operating expenses yields total annual expenditures incurred
by the Airport. As shown in Table 5-6, total Airport Operating Expenses increased from $5,336,935 in FY
2003 to $6,599,939 in FY 2009. Projected increases in the Airport’s total expenses are presented in
Table 5-7, which forecasts expenditure levels increasing from $6,699,939 in FY 2009 to approximately
$9,152,109 in FY 2016.
6.
Debt Service
Given the magnitude and scope of the projects contained in the recommended CIP, the issuance of new
debt will be necessary to underwrite the following elements of this work:
Terminal, Phase II – Airport Administration and Baggage project ($9.6 million PFC eligible as well as
$2.4 million for non AIP and PFC project components)
Concourse B Expansion ($1.9 million PFC revenues)
Concourse C – Phase I Expansion ($6.7 million PFC revenues)
Airport Access Road Improvements ($1.6 million PFC revenues)
Phase I – Passenger Parking Expansion Project ($2.2 million)
Since portions of the terminal construction projects are eligible for funding through the PFC program, it is
proposed that the Airport weigh the feasibility of pursuing debt financing backed by its future stream of
PFC revenues to retire this debt and complete this work in a timely fashion. Since the Airport successfully
retired all outstanding debt as of June 30, 2008 the Airport will be in an opportune position to issue new
debt to undertake these projects assuming passenger activity and operating financial results are achieved
and are reasonably expected to continue for the duration of the debt payment period. Several options
exist for the Airport to pursue debt financing for these projects including:
General Obligation Bonds issued by the City on behalf of the Airport with PFC revenue and general
airport revenue pledged to support payment of debt service
General Airport Revenue Bonds secured by a pledge of general airport and PFC revenue to retire
debt service
Stand-Alone PFC Bonds backed solely by PFC revenues
Each of the above options have unique advantages and disadvantages which the Airport should more
thoroughly and thoughtfully weigh prior to proceeding with issuing bonds for these projects. In terms of
the Passenger Parking Expansion and Airport Administration Projects, it is recommended that the Airport
issue either General Obligation Bonds or General Airport Revenue Bonds secured by a pledge of general
airport revenues for retirement of this debt.
5-26
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Table 5-8
provides a debt service schedule for bonds issued in FY 2010 for the Terminal Phase II project,
Concourse B expansion, and Access Road improvements projects. In addition, this table assumes that in
FY 2014 additional bonds will be issued for the Concourse C – Phase I expansion. These debt service
assumptions are tracked in Table 5-3 in the annual “Required PFC Fund” calculations along with projects
scheduled to be completed on a pay-as-you-go basis. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that an
overall interest rate of 4.75 percent is obtained for these borrowings and a payback period of 20 years is
utilized. Collectively, these bond packages will entail the issuance of approximately $19.8 million and will
require the use of PFC revenues totaling approximately $1.02 million in Fiscal Years 2011-2013 and
Table5-9
$1.54 million per year thereafter to achieve retirement. As noted on Table 5-3 and , the Airport
is expected to generate sufficient PFC revenues to retire both this debt as well as fund other PFC pay-as-
you-go projects anticipated for construction during this plan.
Table 5-8 also proposes that bonds for the Phase I Passenger Parking Expansion and construction of the
Airport administration space be issued in FY 2010 resulting in debt of approximately $357,000 per year to
be paid from general Airport revenues. With the issuance of these bonds, the aggregate annual debt
service required for these Airport projects will range from
$357,000 to $1.9 million per year during the planning period. As depicted in Table 5-9, it is expected that
sufficient revenue will be generated to support these borrowings and provide annual deposits to the
Airport’s Operating and Capital Reserve Fund.
7. Cash Flow Analysis and Overall Feasibility
This section sets forth a discussion of the Airport’s projected cash flow from Operating Activities (Table 5-
Table 5-10)
9)and its proposed Capital Improvement Plan (for the period FY 2009 through FY 2016. The
purpose of presenting these cash flow analyses is to demonstrate the Airport’s ability to generate revenue
sufficient to cover operating expenses and produce net revenue from operating activities through FY
2016. It further demonstrates that sufficient AIP funds, PFC revenues, and local Operating and Capital
Reserves will be available to implement the recommended CIP through FY 2016.
In Table 5-9, projected Airport expenses are subtracted from projected Airport revenues, including
transfers of sufficient PFC revenue for eligible debt service, on an annual basis through 2016 to estimate
the Airport’s net revenue in each of these years. From this net revenue, the Airport is required to make
debt service payments and deposits to its Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Reserve Fund. This fund is
required by the City and is to hold a balance equal to two months of the Airport’s projected operating
expenses in each year. Since the Airport is expected to hold approximately $1.047 million in this fund as
of FY 2009, additional deposits are not required to meet this two-month requirement until FY 2012,
assuming the attainment of the projected Airport operating expenditure levels presented in Table 5-7.
Total projected annual debt service payments on the proposed FY 2010 and FY 2014 borrowings are
subtracted from the Airport’s net revenue to calculate the Airport’s Net Remaining Revenue Available for
deposit. Once these obligations are accounted for, all remaining net income is available for deposit in the
Airport’s Operating and Capital Reserve Fund.
5-27
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5-28
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5-29
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5-30
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
As shown in Table 5-9, the Airport is projected to produce net revenues adequate to cover all projected
debt service payments and required reserve fund deposits as well as provide for significant deposits to
the Airport Operating and Capital Reserve Fund on an annual basis through FY 2016. Although a
detailed analysis of the Airport operating performance from FY 2017 through FY 2028 was not conducted,
it is anticipated that similar financial results will continue through the end of the planning period.
Table 5-10 presents an analysis of the anticipated sources, uses, and balances of funds for the
recommended CIP through FY 2016. The first section of Table 5-10 presents Sources of Funds that the
Airport anticipates will be available to fund the CIP. As shown in Table 5-10, it is funding for the
recommended CIP will come from AIP entitlement, AIP discretionary, PFC revenue, and the Airport’s
Operating and Capital Reserves and Depreciation Reserve Funds. The Operating and Capital Reserve
Fund is a fund maintained by the Airport which holds the cumulative balance of net revenues from the
Airport’s operating activities. It is forecasted that a balance of approximately $3.3 million will be on hand
as of June 30, 2008. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that portions of future net revenues
from operating activities will be transferred to this account, a portion of the fund will be used to fund the
local share of recommended CIP projects, and a balance of $3.5 million will exist as of June 30, 2016
assuming the Airport achieves the operating financial results projected herein.
The anticipated CIP funding plan (USES OF FUNDS) is also presented in Table 5-10. The preliminary
CIP funding plan was developed and discussed earlier in this analysis. The controlling objectives in
developing the CIP funding plan were to maximize the use of resources from AIP and PFC funds and to
minimize Airport/local funding requirements. The Total Uses of Funds depicted in Table 5-10
corresponds to the total estimated project cost for the recommended CIP projects in each of the planning
years FY 2008 through FY 2016.
The final section of Table 5-10 presents the annual balance projected for each of the funding sources
anticipated for use in the recommended CIP. AIP discretionary funds and private funds will maintain a
zero balance through FY 2016, as it is assumed that these funds will be received when needed to fund
specific components of the recommended CIP. A balance of $2.7 million in AIP entitlement funds is
expected in FY 2016; however, these funds are programmed for use in Fiscal Year 2018 for the Runway
34R Extension Project. A balance of approximately $4.7million in PFC revenues is also forecast; yet,
these resources are pledged to pay debt service as well as other pay-as-you-go eligible projects in future
years. Finally, as noted previously, the Airport’s Operating and Capital Reserve Fund is expected to
continue a positive balance through FY 2016.
Conclusion
As shown in Tables 5-9 and 5-10, the Airport is projected to produce positive net operating revenues
through FY 2016. Furthermore, the deposit of a portion of these net operating revenues into the Airport’s
Operating and Capital Reserve Fund will allow the Airport, based on the CIP funding plan developed in
this analysis, to have adequate amounts of AIP, PFC, and Operating and Capital Reserve Funds
necessary to fund the CIP through 2016.
Based on the foregoing analysis, including the underlying assumptions under which it was made, the CIP
recommended for the Airport is expected to be both feasible and implementable.
5-31
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
8. Sensitivity Analyses
This section of the financial feasibility analysis considers the impact of alternative financial assumptions
on the capital plan contemplated herein.
A scan of the aviation industry as of the date of publication of this study reveals that The United States
Congress has yet to enact legislation to reauthorize “Vision 100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization
Act”; therefore, FAA’s ability to issue AIP grants to airport sponsors is limited. Moreover, the price of
crude oil has reached unprecedented levels creating economic uncertainty and further pressuring both
the commercial airline industry as well as general aviation providers/aircraft owners to keep aviation a
viable and solvent industry. As the result of the mounting pressure the cost of fuel is placing on the
commercial aviation industry, additional consolidation is anticipated which could affect the ability of the
Airport to complete the capital plan as presented. Despite these concerns, several potential indicators
and policy changes could bolster the airport’s ability to sustain momentum and accomplish the
recommended projects contained in this plan. The first is a change in the PFC program; the second
includes reductions in airport activity; and the third explores the Airport’s ability to generate additional
revenue using surplus properties.
8.1 Changes in PFC Program
Although Congress has yet to finalize action on FAA AIP Reauthorization legislation, it is generally
believed that when it does the current PFC level of $4.50 per passenger will be increased to $7.00 per
passenger. Such a measure would prove invaluable to the Airport, as this action would translate into the
ability to undertake key terminal expansion and renovation projects based more on a pay-as-you-go basis
Table 5-11
rather than rely solely on PFC-backed debt financing. provides a summary of estimated PFC
collections with a $7.00 per passenger fee along with anticipated PFC expenditures. With the higher PFC
in place, the Airport could reduce the amount of debt it would need to issue for the Terminal Phase II –
Airport Administration/Baggage project by $6.0 million and fund from cash both phases of the Concourse
C expansion projects scheduled for 2014 and 2023 respectively. Finally, with a $7.00 PFC, the Airport
could cease collections for all projects contained in this plan in FY 2020.
8.2 Changes in Airport Activity
In terms of the impact of a decline in aviation activity occurring as the result of current economic
conditions, the Airport is poised to be rather resilient and capable of absorbing these impacts. A broad
sensitivity analysis was applied to the passenger forecast contained in this plan whereby a 10 percent
decrease in passenger enplanements occurs in FY 2009 followed by an additional 5 percent reduction in
FY 2010. Thereafter, a compounded annual growth rate of 2 percent was applied for the remainder of the
Table 5-12
forecast. depicts the impact of such a reduction in passenger activity on forecasted FAA
entitlement and PFC funds for the period FY 2009-2016.
5-32
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5-34
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
As noted, sufficient PFC revenues should exist to fund the proposed plan even with this reduced
passenger level; however, it will be necessary for the Airport to “multi-year” its FAA grant program in
Fiscal Years 2011, 2012 and 2014 in order to garner sufficient federal funding. Since the Airport intends
to construct an Aircraft Deicing Facility in 2011, and this project already has FAA Discretionary funding
tentatively earmarked for it, it is likely that the FAA would allocate the additional resources to complete
this project. If additional discretionary funding is provided, the Airport would only be required to multi-year
entitlement funds in FY 2012 and 2014.
While Table 5-12 focuses on the short and mid-term planning horizon, extrapolation of the adjustments to
enplanements described above for the entire master plan period indicates that aggregate FAA
entitlements would total $59.9 million while PFC collections would total $33.2 million creating a shortfall of
approximately $4.3 million for the recommended capital program. To bridge the lack of PFC funds, the
Airport should consider either allocating resources from its Operating and Capital Reserve Fund, earmark
funds from the lease of land for construction, and/or increase airport fees and charges. Of course, such
measures would need to be factored against an evaluation of the need to undertake capacity-driven
projects such as passenger automobile parking expansions, terminal building projects, and fuel farm
expansion work if such an economic/passenger downturn were to occur.
8.3 Additional Revenue Generation
It is recognized that the Airport currently maintains an inventory of property which it could lease to
generate revenue to help pay for the CIP. The purpose of this review and subsequent analysis is to
provide observations and recommendations on the physical, legal and economic aspects of those
Exhibit 5-2
properties identified on the as being available for consideration for revenue generation for the
Eugene Airport. Following are items the City needs to consider in conjunction with determining if these
properties are suitable for non-airport operations.
All identified properties are located outside of the Urban Growth Boundary of the City; therefore,
urban services are not available including water and sanitary sewer service. Many of the parcels
can be developed; however, without these services, their utility is limited since fire sprinklers are
required in buildings over certain sizes. These parcels will be difficult to market as they cannot
support fire suppression systems due to the lack of public water service. In addition, the lack of
sanitary sewer service will also limit the development of most parcels, as the soils in the area are
not conducive for traditional septic systems. A prime example of this is the States Veneer Facility
at Hwy 99 and Enid, where it was necessary to have a very expensive sand filter system installed
to accommodate their operations. If public services can be made available to any of the parcels
being considered for revenue generation, this should be fully explored prior to marketing the
properties. Additional consideration should be given to the method of taxation, as it is assumed
that the properties will go onto the City’s tax rolls if any property rights are conveyed to a private,
for-profit entity. There is a provision that allows Airport property to remain tax exempt even when
improved with private sector for-profit uses, so a determination of the applicability of this
exemption should be explored in-depth by legal counsel prior to moving forward with
implementation of any marketing activities.
5-35
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
5-36
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
The decision as to whether to allow the properties to be marketed on a ground lease or for sale
basis should be determined prior to offering the properties for alternative uses. There is
reluctance in the marketplace to enter into ground leases as they are very difficult to finance. The
Lessees typically request a subordination clause so financing can be obtained; however, this
creates considerable risk for the Lessor as they become a second or third place lien holder if
subordination is granted. In addition, what happens to the structural improvements at the end of
the lease term also causes concern as most ground leases have a provision to allow the Lessee
to purchase the site at the end of the lease term. A local example of how ground leases can
adversely affect the marketing of properties is the example of the University of Oregon’s
Riverfront Research Park. This project only allows ground leases, (typically 99 years), yet, there
has been very little activity and demand for these properties. There are other factors in the lack of
market acceptance, but the ground lease situation is viewed by many in the real estate market as
being one of the major impediments to market acceptance. If a sale is contemplated, then
compatibility of uses becomes an issue as does the potential need for future Airport expansion. A
sale can be consummated with a reservation for the City to have the first right of refusal on any
future sale or if needed for tax purposes, the City could reserve an option to buy back the
property for a specified price at a specified date.
Wetland mitigation could be a factor for some properties. The current cost of mitigation, on a one-
for-one basis, is approximately $60,000 per acre, which is above the price the property could
achieve in the market; therefore it is highly unlikely that any prospective user would undertake
wetland mitigation.
With regard to the potential use of the larger acreage parcels, the recommendation is to market
these for agricultural uses. A ground lease for this type of use will not be difficult to achieve as
many uses of this type do not require the construction of improvements. A use such as the raising
of nursery stock, Christmas trees or the continuation of the raising of grass seed crops are a few
of the recommended uses for these larger parcels which are all zoned for agricultural uses.
Rates of return for these types of uses currently range from 4-6 % of the underlying land value.
Annual increases tied to the Consumer Price Index are many times asked for, but in agricultural
ground leases Lessees typically do not accept such rate increases. This range of uses would not
produce a significant increase in the income currently being generated, assuming the current
arrangements are at market rates.
The 20-acre parcel located to the Northeast of the new runway could conceivably be used for a
commercial range of uses. However, if utility services are not available, then the range of uses is
severely limited. One consideration is that if a large user is contemplated, such as a hospitality
(Motel/Hotel) facility, then a lagoon system may be necessary. The Airport overlay zone
precludes any use/development that may attract waterfowl/ birds, and open lagoons are difficult
to locate near runways. A closed system could be constructed; however, the costs may be
prohibitive. The same situation goes for water service as any overnight lodging facility would
require fire sprinklers and without gravity flow water service, it is not feasible to construct a
reservoir system to accommodate this need. Stormwater runoff is required to be treated prior to
entering the watershed, so to accommodate a large paved area it will be very difficult to make this
accommodation and not have an open settling pond system. If utility services become available,
then the range of uses and eventual prices will be greater than if not. The recent (2008) sales in
the vicinity indicate unit prices in the $2-$3.50 per square foot of land area, and these sales have
5-37
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
a full level of services available. These unit prices are for industrially related uses, so if a
commercial use could be placed on this site, an increase of almost twice the demonstrated unit
price could be achieved. The eventual construction of the State Mental Hospital and Prison will
enhance the demand for this site; however it may be several years before construction is started.
Access to the state Highway will be highly scrutinized by ODOT (Oregon Department of
Transportation).
The 40-acre parcel that parallels the new runway would receive a reasonable level of market
interest; however, public utility services will need to be provided because wells and septic tanks
are not practical. There is a good level of market demand for smaller buildable industrially zoned
sites; however, the recent substantial increase in fuel costs has created a perception that the
outlying areas are now less desirable when compared to other sites due to the increases in
transporting materials and personnel. When this property is divided into smaller parcels
(recommended 3-5 acre parcels) then a unit price of $2-$3 per square foot is anticipated;
however, the costs of making the property buildable will need to be deducted such as partitioning,
fill material, services and/or approvals, and the extension of utilities such as electric, phone and
other related costs.
The smaller 2-acre parcel on Airport Road will be readily accepted if marketed for sale as it
enjoys considerable traffic exposure. Assuming the sites’ proximity to the pond does not render it
unbuildable; a sale of the property for a light industrial type of use is anticipated.
The 11-acre parcel at the northwest corner of Airport Road and Douglas Drive is the most viable
for generating revenue in the short-term. In addition, the smaller parcel located at the northeast
corner of the same intersection is also perceived as having good potential of being accepted by
the marketplace for traditional airport related uses. Assuming a range of uses consistent with
those permitted in the C-1 or C-2 zones, a range of market prices in the $6-10 per sq ft range is
anticipated for this property. The variance in price is dependent on the amount of fill that is
needed to bring the site to a buildable condition as well as where access will be located. If there
are restrictions on lighting and other elements of a traditional commercial use, then these could
have a downward affect to the price, however it is not perceived as being substantial. This
location is considered to have the greatest potential for generating revenue, both in amount per
acre and timing.
Creation and implementation of an overall marketing plan is critical to achieving market participation
beyond a few specific users. It is recommended that the city move forward with creating such a plan for
any property it is contemplating leasing or selling. At a minimum, the plan should include a list of
permitted uses and restrictions for the properties, a description of current utilities and how these services
may be provided in the future, full disclosure of all wetlands the City’s willingness to pay brokerage fees,
and a complete description of the process to be utilized to obtain City approval for any lease or sale.
Finally, it is recommended that pricing should be based on perceived unit prices considered comparable
to the properties being conveyed, recognizing that many uses will be totally dependent on their proximity
to the Airport. In undertaking its marketing plan, the City should remain cognizant of the fact that local
market conditions are beginning to show signs of slowing. It is conceivable there will be a very limited
demand for many of the properties being considered for revenue generation. The agricultural demand has
remained relatively unchanged over the past decades and even if there is a recession, the income
potential estimated for these properties is estimated to remain relatively unchanged. The demand for the
5-38
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 5
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
remaining parcels will be somewhat limited, dependent on the availability of services. If the parcels at
Airport Road and Douglas Drive are served, they will demonstrate a relatively strong demand and airport
related users will still be willing to enter into either ground leases or sales, dependent on the offering by
the City.
5-39
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
6
6
ݸ¿°¬»®
Land Use Compatibility
This chapter provides details and analysis of government
regulations and guidelines pertaining to airport design and
operation. The effects of federal, state, and local
regulations on Eugene Airport are presented. Items
explored in greater detail are Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) design standards, Oregon Revised
Statutes (ORS) and Administrative Rules (OAR), the Lane
County Code, and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan (Metro Plan). In addition to land use,
the effects of airport noise are discussed.
Land use compatibility planning in the vicinity of an airport
provides safety for aircraft, and for people and property on
the ground. In recent years, incompatible land uses and
their impacts on airport operations and development have
escalated nationwide. As incompatible land uses near
airports threaten the nation’s aviation system,
implementation of land use controls have become an
industry priority.
It is essential to maintain an obstruction-free airport and associated airspace. Planning to guard against
incompatible land uses should be conducted for airport property, runway protection zones, approach
areas, and the general vicinity of the airport. While some of these areas are owned by airports, land
beyond airport boundaries is privately owned and needs to be managed by the airport’s local jurisdictions
to ensure safe airport operations. The primary tools available to local governments to prevent
incompatible development are comprehensive plans, airport land use plans, development regulations,
and airport overlay zoning ordinances.
1. Local, State, and Federal Land Use Regulations and Guidance
Airspace protection is vital to the safety and success of any airport. Although airports are accepted as
essential public facilities, their relationship with surrounding land uses can often lead to conflict. In the
interest of safety for aviation and citizens living and working in the area, there are regulations that define
the types of land uses permitted around airports. These restrictions include height limits and land use
prohibitions within a defined vicinity of an airport.
The Airport is owned by the City of Eugene but several other governments and agencies influence
decision making. The Metro Plan, administered by the Lane Council of Governments, is an overarching
planning document. The State of Oregon’s Revised Statues and Administrative Rules also impact the
Airport, as does guidance from the FAA. The intention of these guidelines and regulations is to enable
6-1
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
the Airport to continue safe and efficient operations without detrimentally impacting the surrounding
community.
1.1 Federal Regulations and Guidance
There are three FAA criteria that lay the foundation for airport land use compatibility planning: grant
assurances, design standards, and Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 surfaces. These criteria
are discussed in the following sections.
1.1.1 Grant Assurances
Airport sponsors agree to federal grant assurances as part of their project funding applications. Upon
acceptance of grant money, these assurances are incorporated into and become part of the grant
agreement, and the airport sponsor is obligated to comply with them. Grant Assurance 21, included in
the September 1999 amendment to 49 USC 47107, requires all airports that accept federal money to take
appropriate actions against incompatible land uses in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Such actions
include adopting zoning laws, changing existing zoning, and purchasing neighboring land to protect
federal investments through the maintenance of a safe operating environment.
1.1.2 Design Standards
Design standards, as defined by FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design,are implemented for the safe
operation of an airport. These standards fulfill safety-related functions for airports and aircraft, and have
a role in land use. Design standards for Eugene Airport are shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).
One design standard is the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). An RPZ is an area beyond each runway end
that protects against incompatible objects and land uses. It is desirable to clear all objects from the RPZ,
although some objects and land uses are permitted, provided they do not attract wildlife and do not
interfere with navigational aids. Land uses specifically prohibited from the RPZ include fuel storage
facilities, residences, and places of public assembly (churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings,
shopping centers, or other uses with similar concentrations of people). The RPZ is designed with the
intent to protect people and property on the ground.
RPZs for Eugene’s Runway Ends 16R and 16L extend beyond airport property. From an off-airport land
use compatibility perspective, the RPZ is a critical FAA design standard. Control is preferably exercised
by acquisition of sufficient property interest to achieve and maintain an area that is clear of all
incompatible objects and land uses. Where acquisition is impractical, avigation easements are
recommended to obtain the right to maintain the height of structures and vegetation within the RPZ.
1.1.3 FAR Part 77
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 77 (FAR Part 77), Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace,
establishes standards for determining and defining objects as obstructions to air navigation. While design
standards contained in FAA AC 150/5300-13 are intended to protect ground areas near airports, FAR
Part 77 is intended to protect airspace near airports. Section 77.25, Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces,
establishes surfaces in relation to the airport and to each runway.
6-2
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
The FAA is authorized to undertake an aeronautical study to determine whether an object is a hazard to
air navigation. However, the FAA is not authorized to regulate tall structures, limit structure heights, or
determine which structures should be lighted or marked. As part of aeronautical study determinations,
the FAA acknowledges that state or local authorities control the appropriate use of property beneath an
airport’s airspace. This reinforces the need for local land use controls to support the findings of the FAA.
Exhibits 6-1 6-2
FAR Part 77.25 surfaces are explained below, and shown in and, and the ALP.
Horizontal Surface –
The horizontal surface is a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport
elevation. The perimeter is constructed by swinging arcs of specified radii from the center of each end of
the primary surface of each runway, and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The
radius of each arc is 5,000 feet for utility or visual runways ends, and 10,000 feet for precision and non-
precision runway ends.
Conical Surface –
The conical surface extends upward and outward from the periphery of the horizontal
surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.
Primary Surface –
The primary surface is longitudinally centered on a runway. The elevation of any
point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline.
The width of the primary surface is dependent on the most precise approach procedure existing or
planned for either runway end.
Approach Surface –
The approach surface is longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline
and extends outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. The surface length, outer width,
and slope are dependent on the most precise approach procedure existing or planned for the runway
end.
Transitional Surface –
The transitional surfaces begin at the edges of the primary and approach
surfaces, extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline at 7 to 1 slope, and extend
to the horizontal surface. For precision approach surfaces extending beyond the conical surface, the
transitional surface extends 5,000 feet horizontally from the edge of the approach surface.
6-3
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
Exhibit 6-1: FAR Part 77.25 Surfaces – Plan View
Source: FAR Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. (Dimensions A-E are identified on the ALP.
1
Exhibit 6-2: FAR Part 77 Surfaces – 3D Isometric View of Section A of Exhibit 6-
Source: FAR Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace
6-4
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
1.1.4 Wildlife Attractants
Wildlife-aircraft strikes have resulted in the loss of life, and billions of dollars in aircraft and property
damage. Airports are often surrounded by open, undeveloped land intended to enhance safety and
reduce noise impacts. These open areas can present potential hazards to aviation, especially if they
attract wildlife. Constructed and natural areas, such as wetlands, detention/retention ponds, waste water
treatment plans, and landfills, can provide ideal habitat for wildlife. These uses on and near airports can
cause a hazard to safe air navigation, driving the need for proper land use planning.
FAA AC 150/5200-33N, Hazardous Wildlife Attractant on or near Airports, recommends airports used by
jet aircraft (as opposed to piston) have a 10,000 foot separation between current and new development of
wildlife attractants such as water impoundments. Recently, the City of Eugene has unveiled a plan to
restore wetlands on the west side of town. Although wetlands are known attractants to wildlife, the
project is over 10,000 feet away from the nearest airport development and therefore complies with FAA
recommendations. Similar projects should be considered regarding their proximity to the Airport, and
their potential to attract wildlife.
The Airport is taking steps at the local level to manage wildlife, by working with stakeholders to manage
the hunting of waterfowl in the Airport vicinity. The goal is to not encourage waterfowl to travel toward the
Airport as a result of hunting activities (for example, waterfowl seeking shelter from gunshot by flying to
the Airport and in aircraft airspace).
1.2 State of Oregon Regulations and Guidance
The State of Oregon has identified the continued safe operation of aircraft as a state concern and has
created statutes to guide local government planning around airports. ORS Chapter 836 addresses airport
operations, and Sections 608, 610, 616, 619 and 623 of Chapter 836 pertain to land use around airports.
While these statutes do not establish criteria or land use guidelines for land near airports, they do grant
local governments the authority to create such laws tailored to local airport needs. Support in interpreting
and applying the laws in these statutes is provided by the Airport Planning Rule, found in OAR Chapter
660, Division 13.
ORS 836.608 requires local governments to recognize airport locations in local planning documents, and
to depict airport locations on local planning maps. This statute also establishes the process for airports to
expand or add new land uses on their property. The continuation and expansion of land uses on airport
property is protected by this statute, provided the use was in existence on or before 1996 and the use
complies with state planning laws. The expansion of an existing land use which impacts off-airport
property is subject to a public hearing.
ORS 836.610 requires local governments to amend their land use regulations and comprehensive plans
to be consistent with 836.616 and 836.619. Sections 836.616 and 836.619 identify types of uses
permitted on airport grounds, and require the government creating airport zoning to consult with the
Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission to meet standards for safe land uses near
airports.
6-5
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
ORS 836.623 allows local governments to limit the size of water impoundments near airports to reduce
the attraction of birds, thus reducing the risk of bird strikes, by requiring that no new water impoundments
larger than one quarter of an acre shall be allowed on airport property, or within 5,000 feet of the runway
ends. The Oregon Department of Aviation’s Airport Land Use Compatibility Guidebook, section 5.3b.2,
recommends that local governments create regulations to prohibit water impoundments within approach
zones.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s regulations for airport noise emissions, OAR 340-
035-0045, are discussed in Section 2 of this chapter.
1.3 Lane County Regulations
Chapter 16 of the Lane Code pertains to land use and development. This chapter establishes the
Commercial Airport Safety (CAS-RCP) Combining Zone and the Airport Operations Zone. Together,
these Zones establish criteria and regulations for what can and cannot be built around the Airport in the
interest of safety. Note that there is no overlap between the Lane County Comprehensive Plan and the
Lane Council of Government’s Metro Plan. Page I-6 of the 2004 Metro Plan indicates that “Lane Code
Chapter 16 is applied in the area between the UGB and the Plan boundary to implement the Metro Plan.”
1.3.1 Airport Operations Zone (Lane Code 16.247)
The intention of the Airport Operations Zone (AO-RCP) is “to recognize those areas devoted to or most
suitable for the immediate operational facilities necessary for commercial and non-commercial aviation”.
The AO-RCP is also intended “to provide areas for certain open space uses for airfield grounds
maintenance and as a buffer to minimize potential dangers from, and conflicts with, the use of aircraft.”
Table 6-1
shows permitted buildings and uses in the AO-RCP.
Table 6-1. Permitted Buildings and Uses in an Airport Operations Zone
Expansions and alterations of essential airport
Aircraft or air transportation business or
facilities such as hangers and tie downs
professional uses
provided they do not allow a larger class of
airplane
Environmental monitoring and enforcement
Game and fish preserves
agencies
Air cargo warehousing and distribution facilities Schools relating to aircraft operations
Aerial mapping and surveying Public parking and/or auto storage
Retail sales and commercial services for Accessory buildings normally required in
passengers or flight connected activities connection with a use as specified in this table
Aircraft related research and testing Aircraft sales, repair, service and storage
Aviation clubs Auto rental agencies
Hotels and motels Restaurants
Taxi, bus, and truck terminals Forest or open land preserves
General farming Pastures and grazing
Public and semi-public buildings, structures,
Aircraft or aircraft component manufacturing or
and uses essential to the physical and
assembly
economic welfare of an area
Source: Lane Code 16.247(2)
6-6
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
Lane Code 16.247(3) states that airport related uses not described in Table 6-1 are subject to approval by
a hearing official. In general, these uses will be approved if their location near an airport is necessary for
the airport to function, or if there are factors that make airport proximity advantageous. Lane Code
16.247(4) lists structure approval criteria, such as conformance to the Rural Comprehensive Plan of Lane
County and compatibility with adjacent land uses. Lane Code 16.247(5) requires the height of proposed
structures to not penetrate FAA Part 77 surfaces, as shown in Exhibit 6-1 and Exhibit 6-2.
1.3.2 Commercial Airport Safety Combining Zone (Lane Code 16.245)
The Commercial Airport Safety Combining Zone (CAS-RCP) is an overlay zone that exclusively affects
land near Eugene Airport. The purpose of the CAS-RCP is to prevent land uses that are hazardous to
airport operations and prevent the construction of obstructions to air navigation as defined in Lane Code
16.245(3). Hazardous uses include those that create significant dust, smoke, or glare; attract birds and
other wildlife; or pose a threat due to their height. The CAS-RCP utilizes surfaces defined in FAR Part
77.25 to define allowable heights of structures. Objects and structures within the Zone are not permitted
Exhibit 6-3
to penetrate the FAR Part 77.25 surfaces. CAS-RCP boundaries are shown in . Height
limitations of the CAS-RCP are illustrated on the ALP Part 77 Surface Plan Sheets.
1.4 Metro Plan Guidance
In 2004, the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, and Lane County adopted the latest update to the
Metro Plan, which provides policy direction concerning the growth and development of the metropolitan
area. Because the Airport’s area of influence spans multiple jurisdictions, planned changes which impact
the Airport must be coordinated with the Metro Plan.
The Metro Plan has been designed as a dynamic document that adapts to the changing needs of the
metropolitan area. Metro Plan amendments may be initiated by the three participating governments, or
by property owners if the amendment is site specific. The approval process for an amendment is decided
by first classifying the amendment by the type of impact it will have on the plan, then using criteria
outlined in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan. As the Metro Plan has defined the Airport as a regional facility,
an amendment to the plan affecting the Airport may require the approval of all three governments. This
Airport Master Plan Update presents changes to land use and the Airport Layout Plan, and may require
future Metro Plan amendments.
According to the Metro Plan, Eugene Airport is located outside the UGB to “protect it from incompatible
development as well as to reduce airport-related impacts on development within the UGB.” The Airport is
designated as “government/education” land use on the Metro Plan diagram, and receives emergency
services and utilities from its owner, the City of Eugene. The land surrounding the Airport is designated
“agricultural” according to the Metro Plan diagram. Metro Plan Policy F.30 is to “support public
investment in the Eugene Airport as a regional facility and provide land use controls that limit
incompatible development within the airport environs,” and to “continue to use the Eugene Airport Master
Plan as a guide for improvements of facilities and services at the airport.”
6-7
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
Sources: Lane Code 16.245, Lane County GIS
6-8
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
The Metro Plan also establishes an area called the “Airport Reserve”. The Airport Reserve is “land which
may be acquired by the City of Eugene at some future time in connection with Eugene Airport, for which
an exception to statewide planning goals must be taken, if the zoning is changed from Exclusive Farm
Use/Commercial Airport Safety Combining (E-40/CAS zone).” This allows the City of Eugene to permit
future airport growth and prevent the Airport from becoming constrained by future surrounding zoning. In
effect, this policy allows the Airport to acquire and rezone land without such an action being confronted on
the basis that it violates the Metro Plan or Oregon state policies. The Airport Reserve is designated on
maps contained in Appendix C of the Metro Plan.
1.5 Recommendations
This Airport Master Plan Update recommends airside and landside improvements to accommodate future
operations and development. The local, state, and federal policies that are in place today protect the
Airport from encroaching development and obstructions, and protect the community from unsafe
conditions on the ground. However, the proposed Airport improvements will require modifications to the
zoning boundaries to ensure the Airport continues to be protected from incompatible development, and
continues to operate safely.
It is recommended that Lane County, the City of Eugene and Eugene Airport conduct a detailed analysis
of existing land use protection measures to determine necessary changes that will result from the
implementation of the airport improvement projects outlined in this Airport Master Plan Update. The
development of a property acquisition plan is also recommended to identify property that should be
acquired to accommodate planned airport improvements. The following subsections highlight the areas
that will need to be addressed.
1.5.1 Existing RPZs
The RPZ for Runway End 16R extends onto approximately 4.5 acres of land that is not owned by the
Airport. The RPZ for Runway End 16L extends onto approximately 6.6 acres of land that is not owned by
Airport, in addition to railroad and public road rights-of-way. The RPZs for Runway Ends 34R and 34L
are located on Airport property.
The RPZs for Runway Ends 16R and 16L are expected to remain in their current location under this
Airport Master Plan Update. It is recommended that the Airport acquire these properties to protect the
runways from incompatible development. If this is not possible, the airport should pursue avigation
easement for the properties.
1.5.2 Future RPZs
Proposed runway extension projects will require the relocation of the RPZs for Runway Ends 34R and
34L. Property within the future RPZs is on current Airport property, with the exception of public road right-
of-way.
1.5.3 FAR Part 77 Surfaces
FAR Part 77 surfaces have been developed for the future runway extensions, and are shown in the
Airport Layout Plan. FAR Part 77 surfaces are also used for Lane County’s Commercial Airport Safety
6-9
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
(CAS-RCP) Combining Zone. It is recommended that the FAR Part 77 surfaces of the Airport Layout
Plan be coordinated with Lane County’s CAS-RCP Combining Zone, and that impacts to existing land use
and future development patterns be evaluated. Changes to the CAS-RCP Combining Zone should be
coordinated with the Metro Plan amendment procedures.
2.
Aircraft Noise
While many land use regulations limit what can be done around airports, some regulations limit the
impact airports can have on the neighboring population. Aircraft noise can be a nuisance to noise
sensitive land uses surrounding an airport. Noise sensitive land uses can include residences, hotels,
schools, churches, and office complexes. Noise can be a detrimental factor in the relationship between
an airport and the surrounding community. Proper land use planning and protection are essential to
mitigate the negative externality of airport noise, to keep the airport free of operational restrictions and
incompatible land uses.
2.1 FAA Aircraft Noise Guidance
To evaluate potential noise impacts, an aircraft noise analysis was performed and is presented in this
study. According to the FAA’s Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions, a noise analysis,
including noise contour maps, is required for airport projects that involve 90,000 annual piston-powered
aircraft operations or 700 annual jet-powered aircraft operations, as well as projects that involve a new
airport location, a new runway, a major runway extension, or runway strengthening.
To evaluate noise impacts, the FAA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have established the 65 decibel day-night average sound level
(65 DNL) as a threshold for determination of significant noise impacts. Areas experiencing aircraft noise
levels at or above 65 DNL are considered to have significant noise impacts. The FAA’s Integrated Noise
Model (INM) is the accepted industry tool for evaluating aircraft noise impacts. The INM assists in
analyzing changes in noise impacts resulting from new or extended runways or runway configurations;
assessing new traffic demand, fleet mixes and alternative flight profiles; and evaluating modifications to
operational procedures.
Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) establishes Noise Control Regulations for Airports
in OAR 340-035-0045. Houses within the 55 DNL contour can require the airport to undertake a noise
abatement program. The airport and local government should work together to reduce the effects of
aircraft noise on neighboring land uses.
2.2 Aircraft Noise Analysis
This section compares noise exposure levels for 2006 with projected noise exposure levels for 2026. The
following identifies land uses adversely affected by noise, and presents strategies to mitigate noise
concerns.
2.2.1 Methodology
To prepare a noise exposure map, the INM requires information concerning the number of aircraft
operations, the types of aircraft (fleet mix), the time of day (day or night) that activity occurs, runway
6-10
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
utilization patterns, and the typical flight tracks of aircraft. Coordination with Airport staff and the FAA,
and evaluation of the aviation demand forecasts presented in Chapter 2, provided the necessary
information to depict existing and future noise exposure levels at Eugene Airport.
Aircraft Fleet Mix
Eugene Airport has a diverse fleet mix. Aircraft range from small, single-engine general aviation aircraft
such as the Cessna 172 to regional and narrow-body commercial service aircraft like the Canadair
CRJ700 and the Boeing 737. The airport also receives a significant number of private corporate
turboprop and jet aircraft. Other airport activity includes various military aircraft and general aviation
helicopters. The Airport’s fleet mix was provided by Airport staff and supplemented with data from the
2000 Master Plan.
Airport Operations
The frequency, or total number, of aircraft operations was based on the FAA-approved forecasts
contained in Chapter 2 of this Master Plan Update. The total number of operations, with the exception of
touch-and-go operations, was divided equally into approach and departure operations. According to
Airport staff, touch-and-go operations account for approximately 60 percent of general aviation
operations.
Daytime-Nighttime Operations
The INM assigns “penalties” to nighttime operations because aircraft noise is perceived to be louder at
night when ambient sound levels are lower. The proportions of daytime and nighttime activity for
commercial operations were based on published flight schedules, while proportions for general aviation
and cargo operations were based on discussions with Airport staff.
Runway Utilization
Runway utilization includes the number, location, and orientation of the active runways, as well as the
directions and types of operations that occur on each runway. Runway utilization depends primarily on
wind direction and speed, but is also a function of Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures and separation
standards, terminal location, taxiing distances, and runway lengths. Runway utilization percentages were
determined based on discussions with Airport staff and supplemented with data from the 2000 Master
Plan.
Flight Tracks
Flight track information represents the path over the ground followed by an aircraft. Because it is not
possible to input all of the tracks followed by individual aircraft, the FAA suggests that tracks be
consolidated to represent corridors consisting of estimated average flight tracks. Flight track use was
determined based on discussions with Airport staff.
2.2.2 Analysis
The following exhibits show aircraft noise exposure contours at Eugene Airport, and their relation to the
Exhibit 6-4Exhibit 6-5
Airport and surrounding areas. shows contours for 2006 while shows projected
contours for 2026. The noise exposure levels for 2026 include increased operations and proposed
airfield improvements.
6-11
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
Comparison of the 2006 noise contours to the 2026 noise contours show the contours shrinking in size
from north to south, and widening from east to west. This is because of an expected change in military
aircraft type. The Navy is expected to replace the A-6 Intruder with the F-18 Hornet. As the F-18 has a
quieter noise profile, the 2026 noise exposure contours are expected to affect fewer parcels.
Table 6-2
shows the reduction of affected parcels decreasing across all land use categories, with the
exception of commercial, which has one more parcel impacted by the 2026 contours. Housing parcels
affected by the 55 DNL or greater contours are expected decrease by 37% by 2026.
Table 6-2: Parcels within Eugene Airport Noise Contours
YearContour Total
65 DNL
50 31 5 8 5 0 0 1
2006
55 DNL
729 221 349 21 92 9 13 24
Total
779 252 354 29 97 9 13 25
65 DNL
48 30 3 9 5 0 0 1
2026
55 DNL
503 167 218 9 71 10 15 14
Total
651 197 221 18 76 10 15 15
Source: City of Eugene GIS “LandUse.shp” Shapefile
The housing category is especially sensitive to airport noise. Per OAR 340-035-0045, housing within the
Table 6-3
55 DNL contour can require the Airport to undertake a noise abatement program. shows a
breakdown of affected housing parcels by housing type. There is a reduction between 2006 and 2026 in
the number of affected housing parcels of all types. There is a significant decrease in single family
housing parcels within the 55 DNL contour in 2026, with 117 less affected parcels than in 2006.
Table 6-3: Breakdown of Affected Housing Parcels
TotalTotal
2006 65 DNL 55 DNL
ParcelsParcels
Duplex0Duplex7
Mobile1Mobile53
Single Family4Single Family290
TotalTotal
2026 65 DNL 55 DNL
ParcelsParcels
Duplex0Duplex3
Mobile0Mobile41
Single Family 3 Single Family 174
Source: City of Eugene GIS “LandUse.shp” Shapefile
Understanding the types of homes within the contours allows for evaluation of mitigation techniques,
which can include buying property, insulating homes, and limiting the hours of the day that aircraft
6-14
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
operate. As aircraft become quieter, the number of affected parcels will decrease, as will the need for
noise abatement.
While the State of Oregon defines its Noise Impact Boundary at 55 DNL, many of the criteria requiring
airport action correlate with the 65 DNL contour. OAR 340-035-0045 Part C recommends that the airport
purchase land within the 65 DNL contour and mandates soundproofing within the 65 DNL contour. Within
the 65 DNL contour for 2006, there are four single family home parcels and one mobile home parcel.
This number decreases to three home parcels in 2026.
2.3 Recommendations
While the results of the noise analysis show the Airport’s noise exposure contours shrinking between
2006 to 2026, the 2026 contours are based upon today’s land uses. As the populations of City of
Eugene, Junction City, and Lane County grow, there will likely be pressure to build and develop
agricultural and vacant land surrounding Airport property. The Airport should continue to be protected
from incompatible land uses through enforcement of Lane County and City of Eugene zoning regulations,
and through the enforcement of the UGB as defined in the Metro Plan. It is recommended that the Airport
consider acquiring land within the 55 DNL contour when feasible.
The Lane Code prevents tall structures from penetrating the FAR Part 77 surfaces, but does not prevent
residential development within the 55 DNL contour. Approximately 375 acres of land in the CAS-RCP
Combining Zone south of Runway End 34R is zoned for residential use, with housing already in place
Exhibit 6-6
(see ). Some of these areas are partially impacted by the 55 DNL noise contours for 2006
and 2026. Although these parcels are not located within the 65 DNL contour, and not eligible for FAA
noise mitigation, OAR 340-035-0045 states that airports must develop a noise abatement program to
minimize the effects of aircraft noise on local residents, and that all levels of government should
cooperate to prevent impacts by encouraging compatible land use. This can be interpreted as
governments taking steps to minimizing the construction of noise sensitive parcels within the 55 DNL
contours. OAR 340-035-0005(38) defines noise sensitive properties as “real property normally used for
sleeping, or normally used as schools, churches, hospitals or public libraries”. As shown in Exhibit 6-6,
Eugene’s UGB may present development pressure near the Airport, and proper planning between the
Airport and the City will be necessary to address land use conflicts.
Under OAR 340-035-0045, air carrier airports such as Eugene Airport are required to submit their existing
noise impact boundary to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, along with their projections
for the next five, ten and twenty year periods, when they update their master plan. It is recommended
that the Airport take steps to comply with this state requirement.
6-15
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
Sources: Lane County GIS, City of Eugene GIS
6-16
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 6
LANDUSECOMPATIBILITY
3. Land Acquisition
As properties around the Airport become available, and as the Airport's priorities are developed,
consideration should be given to land acquisition. The RPZs for Runway Ends 16R and 16L extend to
parcels not owned by the Airport. Parcels in the RPZ, and other parcels near runway ends, are
candidates for acquisition, as Airport control of these parcels allows for protection of aircraft operation and
for people and property on the ground. Acquisition of RPZ parcels has generally been an FAA priority.
Consideration should be given to the total acquisition of a parcel, as compared to the acquisition of only a
conditional use, restriction, or height protection, often in the form of an easement. The Airport may
benefit from leasing interests in a parcel, as opposed to purchasing that parcel.
Parcels may also be acquired to allow the Airport to facilitate desired development, and to better control
development around the Airport. The parcel located at the southwest corner of the intersection of
Douglas Drive and Airport Road may be such a parcel. The Airport Layout Plan shows the Airport's
existing property, as well as parcels to be considered for acquisition.
As a parcel is being evaluated by the Airport for acquisition, consideration should be given to the parcel's
functional opportunity, revenue possibility, and environmental conditions. Consideration should also be
given to the parcel's land use designation, including the designation's compatibility with the Airport's
intended purpose for that parcel, and the possibility and impact of changing that designation, before or
after acquisition.
4. Summary of Recommendations
Proper protection and use of off-airport properties are and will remain paramount in preserving the safety
and operational utility of the Airport. Proper land use compatibility planning now will allow the Airport to
continue to operate into the future, and to connect the City of Eugene and Lane County to the rest of the
world.
Conduct a detailed analysis of existing land use protection measures and what changes may be
required to accommodate future airport improvements (Section 1.5).
Prepare Property Acquisition Plan (Section 1.5).
Acquire properties for RPZ protection (Section 1.5.1 and 3).
Coordinate changes to Part 77 surfaces with Lane County’s Commercial Airport Safety
Combining Zone (Section 1.5.3).
Acquire land within the 55 DNL noise contour where feasible (Section 2.3).
Prevent land being from rezoned to residential, or being used for “noise sensitive” purposes
within Lane County’s Commercial Airport Safety Combining Zone (Section 2.3).
Submit a noise impact boundary and protections for the next five, ten and twenty years to the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
6-17
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
7
7
ݸ¿°¬»®
Airport Layout Plan
This Master Plan Update includes revisions to the Eugene Airport ALP to reflect existing conditions and
proposed improvements. This chapter describes the content of each sheet in the revised ALP.
An airport layout plan (ALP) is a set of drawings that graphically depict existing airport facilities and
proposed improvements. An ALP has five primary functions.
1) A current, FAA-approved ALP is required to receive federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
funding for proposed improvements.
2) An ALP is a blueprint for improvements that maintain airport design standards and safety
requirements, and that are consistent with local land use plans.
3) An ALP is a useful reference in community deliberations regarding land use proposals, local
government budgeting, and other planning-related issues.
4) An ALP enables an airport sponsor and FAA to plan for budgeting, procedural, and airspace
implications of proposed improvements.
5) An ALP is a working tool for airport development and maintenance staff.
An ALP remains current for a five-year period or longer, unless major changes at the airport are made or
planned. The minimum elements and required content for an ALP are defined in FAA Advisory Circular
(AC) 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, Appendix F, Airport Layout Plan. Other FAA ALP funding and
approval requirements are contained in FAA Order 5100.38, Airport Improvement Program Handbook.
Sheet 1 – Cover Sheet
This sheet includes local maps, an ALP sheet index, and approval signature blocks for FAA and local
officials.
Sheet 2 – Existing Airport Layout Plan
This sheet depicts existing airport facilities, design standards, and imaginary surfaces.
Sheet 3 – Future Airport Layout Plan
This sheet depicts proposed future facility improvements, design standards, and imaginary surfaces.
Proposed improvements are based on aviation activity forecasts, facility requirements, and alternatives
analysis contained in this Master Plan Update. These improvements are identified in the Airport’s Capital
Improvement Plan, and include future runway extensions, taxiways, approach lighting systems, aircraft
hangars and ramps, deicing pads, aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) facilities, automobile parking,
and rental car facilities.
Sheet 4 – Airport Data Tables
This sheet presents information tables, including data on Airport location, weather characteristics,
facilities, design standards, and imaginary surfaces.
7-1
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
CHAPTER 7
ALP
IRPORT AYOUT LAN
Sheet 5 – Land Use/Vicinity Aerial
The sheet depicts the future airport layout plan superimposed on an aerial photograph of the airport and
vicinity.
Sheet 6 – Existing Runway 16R/34L
This sheet presents plan and profile views of each existing end of Runway 16R/34L, including approach
lighting, navigational aids, pavement/ground elevation, design standards, and imaginary surfaces.
Sheet 7 – Future Runway 34L
This sheet presents future Runway End 34L plan and profile views, including approach lighting,
navigational aids, pavement/ground elevation, design standards, and imaginary surfaces.
Sheet 8 – Existing Runway 16L/34R
This sheet presents plan and profile views of each existing end of Runway 16L/34R, including approach
lighting, navigational aids, pavement/ground elevation, design standards, and imaginary surfaces.
Sheet 9 – Future Runway 34R
This sheet presents future Runway End 34R plan and profile views, including approach lighting,
navigational aids, pavement/ground elevation, design standards, and imaginary surfaces.
Sheets 10-13 – Appendix 2 Departure Surfaces
These sheets present plan and profile views of existing/future departure surfaces required by AC
150/5300-13, Airport Design, Appendix 2, and obstacle penetrations to these surfaces.
Sheets 14-15 – Runway Plans & Profiles
These sheets present plan and profile views of existing/future Runway 16R/34L and Runway 16L/34R,
including runway ends, safety areas, and pavement/ground elevation profiles.
Sheet 16 – 2006 Noise Contour Plan
This sheet depicts 55 and 65 decibel day night average sound level (DNL) contours for Eugene Airport,
superimposed on a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map.
Sheets 17-19 – FAR Part 77 Surfaces
These sheets present plan and profile views of existing/future FAR Part 77 surfaces, superimposed on a
USGS topographic map.
Sheets 20-21 – Terminal Plan
These sheets present large-scale plan views of areas with proposed terminal facility improvements.
7-2
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
A
A
ß°°»²¼·¨
Glossary of Terms
A
A
ß°°»²¼·¨
Glossary of Terms
ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (AGL)
: An elevation datum given in feet above ground level.
AIR CARRIER
: A person who undertakes directly by lease, or other arrangement, to engage in air
transportation. (FAR 1) (Also see Certificated Air Carrier)
AIR CARRIERS
: The commercial system of air transportation, consisting of the certificated air carriers,
air taxis (including commuters), supplemental air carriers, commercial operators of large aircraft, and air
travel clubs. (FAA Census)
AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER (ARTCC)
: A facility established to provide air traffic control
service to aircraft operating on IFR flight plans within controlled airspace, principally during the en route
phase of flight. When equipment capabilities and controller workload permit, certain advisory/assistance
services may be provided to VFR aircraft. (AIM)
AIR TAXI
: A classification of air carriers which directly engage in the air transportation of persons,
property, mail, or in any combination of such transportation and which do not directly or indirectly utilize
large aircraft (over 30 seats or a maximum payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds) and do not hold
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or economic authority issued by the Department of
Transportation. (Also see commuter air carrier and demand air taxi.) (FAA Census)
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL (ATC)
: A service operated by appropriate authority to promote the safe,
orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic. (FAR 1)
AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT:
An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place
between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have
disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives
substantial damage. (NTSB)
AIRCRAFT APPROACH CATEGORY:
A grouping of aircraft (Categories A–E) based on 1.3 times their
stall speed in their landing configuration at their maximum certificated landing weight. (Airport Design)
AIRCRAFT OPERATION
: The airborne movement of aircraft in controlled or non-controlled airport
terminal areas and about given en route fixes or at other points where counts can be made. There are
two types of operations — local and itinerant. (FAA Stats)
AIRCRAFT PARKING LINE LIMIT (APL)
: A line established by the airport authorities beyond which no
part of a parked aircraft should protrude. (Airport Design)
AIR/FIRE ATTACK BASE
: An established on-airport base of operations for the purposes of aerial
suppression of large-scale fires by specially-modified aircraft. Typically, such aircraft are operated by the
California Department of Forestry and/or the U.S. Forest Service.
AIRPLANE DESIGN GROUP:
A grouping of airplanes (Groups I–V) based on wingspan. (Airport
Design)
A-1
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
AIRPORT
: An area of land or water that is used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of
aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any. (FAR 1)
AIRPORT ELEVATION
: The highest point of an airport's usable runways, measured in feet above mean
sea level. (AIM)
AIRPORT HAZARD
: Any structure or natural object located on or in the vicinity of a public airport, or any
use of land near such airport, that obstructs the airspace required for the flight of aircraft in landing or
taking off at the airport or is otherwise hazardous to aircraft landing, taking off, or taxiing at the airport.
(Airport Design)
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC)
: A commission established in accordance with the
California State Aeronautics Act in each county having an airport operated for the benefit of the general
public. The purpose of each ALUC is “to assist local agencies in ensuring compatibility land uses in the
vicinity of all new airports and in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of
those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses.” An ALUC need not be created if an
alternative process, as specified by the statutes, is established to accomplish the same purpose.
(California Public Utilities Code, Section 21670 et seq.)
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN (ALP)
: A scale drawing of existing and proposed airport facilities, their
location on the airport, and the pertinent clearance and dimensional information required to demonstrate
conformance with applicable standards.
AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE (ARC):
A coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the
operational and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to operate at the airport. (Airport
Design)
AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT (ARP)
: A point established on an airport, having equal relationship to all
existing and proposed landing and takeoff areas, and used to geographically locate the airport and for
other planning purposes. (Airport Design)
AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER (ATCT)
: A terminal facility that uses air/ground
communications, visual signaling, and other devices to provide ATC services to aircraft operating in the
vicinity of an airport or on the movement area. (AIM)
AIRWAY/FEDERAL AIRWAY
: A Class E airspace area established in the form of a corridor, the
centerline of which is defined by radio navigational aids. (AIM)
ALERT AREA
: A special use airspace which may contain a high volume of pilot training activities or an
unusual type of aerial activity, neither of which is hazardous to aircraft. (AIM)
APPROACH LIGHT SYSTEM (ALS)
: An airport lighting system which provides visual guidance to
landing aircraft by radiating light beams in a directional pattern by which the pilot aligns the aircraft with
the extended runway centerline during a final approach to landing. Among the specific types of systems
are:
•
LDIN
Lead-in Light System.
•
MALSR
Medium-intensity Approach Light System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights.
•
ODALS
Omnidirectional Approach Light System, a combination of LDIN and REILS.
•
SSALR
Simplified Short Approach Light System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights. (AIM)
A-2
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
APPROACH SPEED
: The recommended speed contained in aircraft manuals used by pilots when
making an approach to landing. This speed will vary for different segments of an approach as well as for
aircraft weight and configuration. (AIM)
AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVING SYSTEM (AWOS)
: Airport electronic equipment which
automatically measures meteorological parameters, reduces and analyzes the data via computer, and
broadcasts weather information which can be received on aircraft radios in some applications, via
telephone.
AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER (ADF)
: An aircraft radio navigation system which senses and
indicates the direction to a L/MF nondirectional radio beacon (NDB) ground transmitter. (AIM)
AUTOMATIC TERMINAL INFORMATION SERVICE (ATIS)
: The continuous broadcast of recorded non-
control information in selected terminal areas. (AIM)
BACK COURSE APPROACH
: A non-precision instrument approach utilizing the rearward projection of
the ILS localizer beam.
BALANCED FIELD LENGTH
: The runway length at which the distance required for a given aircraft to
abort a takeoff and stop on the runway (accelerate-stop distance) equals the distance required to
continue the takeoff and reach a height of 35 feet above the runway end (accelerate-go distance).
BASED AIRCRAFT
: Aircraft stationed at an airport on a long-term basis.
BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL)
: A line which identifies suitable building area locations on
airports.
CEILING
: Height above the earth's surface to the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomena that is
reported as "broken", "overcast", or "obscuration" and is not classified as "thin" or "partial". (AIM)
CERTIFICATED ROUTE AIR CARRIER
: An air carrier holding a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity issued by the Department of Transportation authorizing the performance of scheduled service
over specified routes, and a limited amount of nonscheduled service. (FAA Census)
CIRCLING APPROACH/CIRCLE-TO-LAND MANEUVER
: A maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the
aircraft with a runway for landing when a straight-in landing from an instrument approach is not possible
or is not desirable. (AIM)
COMMERCIAL OPERATOR
: A person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft
in air commerce of persons or property, other than as an air carrier. (FAR 1)
COMPASS LOCATOR
: A low power, low or medium frequency (L/MF) radio beacon installed at the site
of the outer or middle marker of an instrument landing system (ILS). (AIM)
COMPASS ROSE
: A circle, graduated in degrees, printed on some charts or marked on the ground at an
airport. It is used as a reference to either true or magnetic direction. (AIM)
COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL)
: The noise rating adopted by the State of California
for measurement of airport noise. It represents the average daytime noise level during a 24-hour day,
A-3
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
measured in decibels and adjusted to an equivalent level to account for the lower tolerance of people to
noise during evening and nighttime periods.
COMMUTER AIR CARRIER
: An air taxi operator which performs at least five round trips per week
between two or more points and publishes flight schedules which specify the times, days of the week and
places between which such flights are performed. (FAA Census)
CONTROLLED AIRSPACE
: A generic term that covers the different classifications of airspace (Class A,
Class B, Class C, Class D and Class E airspace) and defines dimensions within which air traffic control
service is provided to IFR flights and to VFR flights in accordance with the airspace classification.
Controlled airspace in the United States is designated as follows:
•
Class A
Generally, that airspace from 18,000 feet MSL up to and including 60,000 feet MSL (Flight
Level 600), including the airspace overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles of the coast of the 48
contiguous states and Alaska. Unless otherwise authorized, all persons must operate their aircraft
under IFR.
•
Class B
Generally, that airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL surrounding the nation's
busiest airports in terms of airport operations or passenger enplanements. The configuration of each
Class B airspace area is individually tailored and consists of a surface area and two or more layers
(some Class B airspaces areas resemble upside-down wedding cakes), and is designed to contain all
published instrument procedures once an aircraft enters the airspace. An ATC clearance is required
for all aircraft to operate in the area, and all aircraft that are so cleared receive separation services
within the airspace. The cloud clearance requirement for VFR operations is "clear of clouds".
•
Class C
Generally, that airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted
in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower, are serviced by radar
approach control, and that have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements.
Although the configuration of each Class C airspace area is individually tailored, the airspace usually
consists of a surface area with a 5 nm radius, and an outer area with a 10 nm radius that extends
from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation. Each person must establish two-way radio
communications with the ATC facility providing air traffic services prior to entering the airspace and
thereafter maintain those communications while within the airspace. VFR aircraft are only separated
from IFR aircraft within the airspace.
•
Class D
Generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the airport elevation
(chartered in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower. The
configuration of each Class D airspace area is individually tailored and when instrument procedures
are published, the airspace will normally be designed to contain the procedures. Arrival extensions
for instrument approach procedures may be Class D or Class E airspace. Unless otherwise
authorized, each person must establish two-way radio communications with the ATC facility providing
air traffic services prior to entering the airspace and thereafter maintain those communications while
in the airspace. No separation services are provided to VFR aircraft.
•
Class E
Generally, if the airspace is not Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D, and it is controlled
airspace, it is Class E airspace. Class E airspace extends upward from either the surface or a
designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. When designated as a surface
area, the airspace will be configured to contain all instrument procedures. Also in this class are
Federal airways, airspace beginning at either 700 or 1,200 feet AGL used to transition to/from the
terminal or en route environment, en route domestic, and offshore airspace areas designated below
18,000 feet MSL. Unless designated at a lower altitude, Class E airspace begins at 14,500 MSL over
the United States, including that airspace overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles of the coast of
the 48 contiguous States and Alaska. Class E airspace does not include the airspace 18,000 feet
MSL or above.
A-4
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
DEMAND AIR TAXI
: Use of an aircraft operating under Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 135,
passenger and cargo operations, including charter and excluding commuter air carrier. (FAA Census)
DISPLACED THRESHOLD
: A threshold that is located at a point on the runway other than the
designated beginning of the runway. (AIM)
DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME)
: Equipment (airborne and ground) used to measure, in
nautical miles, the slant range distance of an aircraft from the DME navigational aid. (AIM)
FAR PART 77
: The part of the Federal Aviation Regulations that deals with objects affecting navigable
airspace.
FAR PART 77 SURFACES
: Imaginary surfaces established with relation to each runway of an airport.
There are five types of surfaces: (1) primary; (2) approach; (3) transitional; (4) horizontal; and (5) conical.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
: The United States government agency that is
responsible for insuring the safe and efficient use of the nation's airspace.
FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO)
: A business operating at an airport that provides aircraft services to
the general public, including but not limited to sale of fuel and oil; aircraft sales, rental, maintenance, and
repair; parking and tiedown or storage of aircraft; flight training; air taxi/charter operations; and specialty
services, such as instrument and avionics maintenance, painting, overhaul, aerial application, aerial
photography, aerial hoists, or pipeline patrol.
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION (FSS)
: FAA facilities which provide pilot briefings on weather, airports,
altitudes, routes, and other flight planning information.
FRACTIONAL OWNERSHIP
: A company or individual buys, or leases, a fractional interest in one aircraft
just as they might acquire a partial interest in one condo unit. They can use their own aircraft or another
similar or identical aircraft a certain number of hours or days per year. The economics of each situation
differs depending on the number of people who will use the aircraft, the value of their time to the
company, and the dollars saved in airline tickets, hotels, etc.
GENERAL AVIATION
: That portion of civil aviation which encompasses all facets of aviation except air
carriers. (FAA Stats)
GENERIC VISUAL GLIDE SLOPE INDICATOR (GVGI)
: A generic term for the group of airport visual
landing aids which includes Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI), Precision Approach Path Indicators
(PAPI), and Pulsed Light Approach Slope Indicators (PLASI). When FAA funding pays for this
equipment, whichever type receives the lowest bid price will be installed unless the airport owner wishes
to pay the difference for a more expensive unit.
GLIDE SLOPE
: An electronic signal radiated by a component of an ILS to provide descent path
guidance to approaching aircraft.
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS)
: A relatively new navigational system which utilizes a network
of satellites to determine a positional fix almost anywhere on or above the earth. Developed and
operated by the U.S. Department of Defense, GPS has been made available to the civilian sector for
surface, marine, and aerial navigational use. For aviation purposes, the current form of GPS guidance
A-5
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
provides en route aerial navigation and selected types of nonprecision instrument approaches. Eventual
application of GPS as the principal system of navigational guidance throughout the world is anticipated.
HELIPAD
: A small, designated area, usually with a prepared surface, on a heliport, airport,
landing/takeoff area, apron/ramp, or movement area used for takeoff, landing, or parking of helicopters.
(AIM)
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE
: A series of predetermined maneuvers for the orderly
transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a
landing or to a point from which a landing may be made visually. It is prescribed and approved for a
specific airport by competent authority. (AIM)
INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR)
: Rules governing the procedures for conducting instrument flight.
Also term used by pilots and controllers to indicate a type of flight plan. (AIM)
INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS)
: A precision instrument approach system which normally
consists of the following electronic components and visual aids: (1) Localizer; (2) Glide Slope; (3) Outer
Marker; (4) Middle Marker; (5) Approach Lights. (AIM)
INSTRUMENT OPERATION
: An aircraft operation in accordance with an IFR flight plan or an operation
where IFR separation between aircraft is provided by a terminal control facility. (FAA ATA)
INSTRUMENT RUNWAY
: A runway equipped with electronic and visual navigation aids for which a
precision or non-precision approach procedure having straight-in landing minimums has been approved.
(AIM)
ITINERANT OPERATION
: An arrival or departure performed by an aircraft from or to a point beyond the
local airport area.
LARGE AIRCRAFT
: An aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight.
(FAR 1)
LIMITED REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUTLET (LRCO)
: An unmanned, remote air/ground
communications facility which may be associated with a VOR. It is capable only of receiving
communications and relies on a VOR or a remote transmitter for full capability.
LOCALIZER (LOC)
: The component of an ILS which provides course guidance to the runway. (AIM)
LOCAL OPERATION
: An arrival or departure performed by an aircraft: (1) operating in the traffic
pattern, (2) known to be departing or arriving from flight in local practice areas, or (3) executing practice
instrument approaches at the airport. (FAA ATA)
LORAN:
An electronic ground-based navigational system established primarily for marine use but used
extensively for VFR and limited IFR air navigation.
MARKER BEACON (MB)
: The component of an ILS which informs pilots, both aurally and visually, that
they are at a significant point on the approach course.
MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL)
: An elevation datum given in feet from mean sea level.
A-6
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
MEDIUM-INTENSITY APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM (MALS)
: The MALS is a configuration of steady-
burning lights arranged symmetrically about and along the extended runway centerline. MALS may also
be installed with sequenced flashers in this case, the system is referred to as MALSF.
MILITARY OPERATIONS AREA (MOA)
: A type of special use airspace of defined vertical and lateral
dimensions established outside of Class A airspace to separate/segregate certain military activities from
IFR traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these activities are conducted. (AIM)
MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDE (MDA)
: The lowest altitude, expressed in feet above mean sea level, to
which descent is authorized on final approach or during circle-to-land maneuvering in execution of a
standard instrument approach procedure where no electronic glide slope is provided. (FAR 1)
MISSED APPROACH
: A maneuver conducted by a pilot when an instrument approach cannot be
completed to a landing. (AIM)
NAVIGATIONAL AID/NAVAID
: Any visual or electronic device airborne or on the surface which provides
point-to-point guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight. (AIM)
NONDIRECTIONAL BEACON (NDB)
: A 4 MF or UHF radio beacon transmitting nondirectional signals
whereby the pilot of an aircraft equipped with direction finding equipment can determine his bearing to or
from the radio beacon and "home" on or track to or from the station. (AIM)
NONPRECISION APPROACH PROCEDURE
: A standard instrument approach procedure in which no
electronic glide slope is provided. (FAR 1)
NONPRECISION INSTRUMENT RUNWAY
: A runway with an instrument approach procedure utilizing air
navigation facilities, with only horizontal guidance, or area-type navigation equipment for which a straight-
in nonprecision instrument approach procedure has been approved or planned, and no precision
approach facility or procedure is planned. (Airport Design)
OBJECT FREE AREA (OFA)
: A surface surrounding runways, taxiways, and taxilanes which should be
clear of parked airplanes and objects except for objects that need to be located in the OFA for air
navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. (Airport Design)
OBSTACLE
: An existing object, object of natural growth, or terrain at a fixed geographical location, or
which may be expected at a fixed location within a prescribed area, with reference to which vertical
clearance is or must be provided during flight operation. (AIM)
OBSTACLE FREE ZONE (OFZ)
: A defined volume of airspace above and adjacent to a runway and its
approach lighting system if one exists, free of all fixed objects except FAA-approved frangible
aeronautical equipment and clear of vehicles and aircraft in the proximity of an airplane conducting an
approach, missed approach, landing, takeoff, or departure.
OBSTRUCTION
: An object/obstacle, including a mobile object, exceeding the obstruction standards
specified in FAR Part 77, Subpart C. (AIM)
OUTER MARKER
: A marker beacon at or near the glide slope intercept position of an ILS approach.
(AIM)
A-7
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATOR (PAPI)
: An airport visual landing aid similar to a VASI, but
which has light units installed in a single row rather than two rows.
PRECISION APPROACH PROCEDURE
: A standard instrument approach procedure in which an
electronic glide slope is provided, such as an ILS or PAR. (FAR 1)
PRECISION INSTRUMENT RUNWAY
: A runway with an instrument approach procedure utilizing an
instrument landing system (ILS), microwave landing system (MLS), or precision approach radar (PAR).
(Airport Design)
RELOCATED THRESHOLD:
The portion of pavement behind a relocated threshold that is not available
for takeoff and landing. It may be available for taxiing and aircraft. (Airport Design)
REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS AIR/GROUND FACILITY (RCAG)
: An unmanned VHF/UHF
transmitter/receiver facility which is used to expand ARTCC air/ground communications coverage and to
facilitate direct contact between pilots and controllers. (AIM)
REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS OUTLET (RCO) AND REMOTE TRANSMITTER/ RECEIVER (RTR)
: An
unmanned communications facility remotely controlled by air traffic personnel. RCO's serve FSS's.
RTR's serve terminal ATC facilities. (AIM)
RESTRICTED AREA
: Designated airspace within which the flight of aircraft, while not wholly prohibited,
is subject to restriction. (FAR 1)
RUNWAY CLEAR ZONE
: A term previously used to describe the runway protection zone.
RUNWAY EDGE LIGHTS
: Lights used to define the lateral limits of a runway. Specific types include:
•
HIRL
High-Intensity Runway Lights
•
MIRL
Medium-Intensity Runway Lights
RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS (REIL)
: Two synchronized flashing lights, one on each side of the
runway threshold, which provide a pilot with a rapid and positive visual identification of the approach end
of a particular runway. (AIM)
RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ):
A trapezoidal shaped area at the end of a runway, the function of
which is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground through airport owner control of
the land. The RPZ usually begins at the end of each primary surface and is centered upon the extended
runway centerline. (Airport Design)
RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA)
: A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for
reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the even of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the
runway. (Airport Design)
SMALL AIRCRAFT
: An aircraft of 12,500 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight. (FAR 1)
SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE
: Airspace of defined horizontal and vertical dimensions identified by an area
on the surface of the earth wherein activities must be confined because of their nature and/or wherein
limitations may be imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities. (AIM)
A-8
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE (SID)
: A preplanned instrument flight rules (IFR) air traffic
control departure procedure printed for pilot use in graphic and/or textual form. SID's provide transition
from the terminal to the appropriate en route structure. (AIM)
STANDARD TERMINAL ARRIVAL ROUTE (STAR)
: A preplanned instrument flight rule (IFR) air traffic
control arrival route published for pilot use in graphic and/or textual form. STARs provide transition from
the en route structure to an outer fix or an instrument approach fix/arrival waypoint in the terminal area.
(AIM)
STOPWAY
: An area beyond the takeoff runway, no less wide than the runway and centered upon the
extended centerline of the runway, able to support the airplane during an aborted takeoff, without causing
structural damage to the airplane, and designated by the airport authorities for use in decelerating the
airplane during an aborted takeoff. (FAR 1)
STRAIGHT-IN INSTRUMENT APPROACH IFR
—: An instrument approach wherein final approach is
begun without first having executed a procedure turn; it is not necessarily completed with a straight-in
landing or made to straight-in landing weather minimums. (AIM)
TAXILANE
: The portion of the aircraft parking area used for access between taxiways, aircraft parking
positions, hangars, storage facilities, etc. (Airport Design)
TAXIWAY
: A defined path, from one part of an airport to another, selected or prepared for the taxiing of
aircraft. (Airport Design)
TERMINAL INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES (TERPS)
: Procedures for instrument approach and
departure of aircraft to and from civil and military airports. There are four types of terminal instrument
procedures: precision approach, nonprecision approach, circling, and departure.
TERMINAL RADAR SERVICE AREA (TRSA)
: Airspace surrounding designated airports wherein ATC
provides radar vectoring, sequencing, and separation on a full-time basis for all IFR and participating VFR
aircraft. (AIM)
THRESHOLD
: The beginning of that portion of the runway usable for landing. (AIM)
TOUCH-AND-GO
: An operation by an aircraft that lands and departs on a runway without stopping or
exiting the runway. A touch-and-go is defined as two operations. (AIM)
TRAFFIC PATTERN
: The traffic flow that is prescribed for aircraft landing at, taxiing on, or taking off from
an airport. The components of a typical traffic pattern are upwind leg, crosswind leg, downwind leg, base
leg, and final approach. (AIM)
TRANSIENT AIRCRAFT
: Aircraft not based at the airport.
TRANSMISSOMETER
: An apparatus used to determine visibility by measuring the transmission of light
through the atmosphere. (AIM)
UNCONTROLLED AIRSPACE
: Now known as Class G airspace. Class G airspace is that portion of the
airspace that has not been designated as Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, and Class E airspace.
A-9
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
UNICOM (Aeronautical Advisory Station)
: A nongovernment air/ground radio communication facility
which may provide airport information at certain airports. (AIM)
VERY-HIGH-FREQUENCY OMNIDIRECTIONAL RANGE (VOR)
: The standard navigational aid used
throughout the airway system to provide bearing information to aircraft. When combined with Distance
Measuring Equipment (DME) or Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) the facility, called VOR-DME or
VORTAC, provides distance as well as bearing information.
VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDICATOR (VASI)
: An airport landing aid which provides a pilot with
visual descent (approach slope) guidance while on approach to landing. Also see PAPI.
VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR)
: Rules that govern the procedures for conducting flight under visual
conditions. The term "VFR" is also used by pilots and controllers to indicate type of flight plan. (AIM)
VISUAL GLIDE SLOPE INDICATOR (VGSI):
A generic term for the group of airport visual landing aids
which includes Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI), Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI), and
Pulsed Light Approach Slope Indicators (PLASI). When FAA funding pays for this equipment, whichever
type receives the lowest bid price will be installed unless the airport owner wishes to pay the difference
for a more expensive unit.
VISUAL RUNWAY
: A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach
procedures, with no straight-in instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated
on an FAA-approved airport layout plan. (Airport Design)
WARNING AREA
: A type of special use airspace which may contain hazards to nonparticipating aircraft
in international airspace. (AIM)
A-10
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
Frequently Used Terms and Acronyms
AAAE: American Association of Airport Executives
AAE: Accredited Airport Executive
AALS: Advanced Approach and Landing System
AAMS: Association of Air Medical Services
AC: Advisory Circular (FAA publications) – Informational policy and guidance material.
ADO: Airports District Office (FAA)
AFFF: Aqueous Film Forming Foam
AFSS: Automated Flight Service Station (FAA)
ALUC: Airport Land Use Commission (California)
AGL: Elevation Above Ground Level
AHS: American Helicopter Society
AIM: Aeronautical Information Manual – Instructions and procedures for operation aircraft in
the U.S. National Airspace System
AIP: Airport Improvement Program – Federal program administering financial grants-in-aid for
airport development projects.
ALP: Airport Layout Plan – Drawings illustrating existing and proposed property, facilities and
structures.
ALUC: Airport Land Use Commission (California)
AMS: Air medical service
AOPA: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
ARFF: Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting
ARTCC: Air Route Traffic Control Center
ASOS: Automated Surface Observation System
ATC: Air Traffic Control – Separation services involving aircraft utilizing a control tower.
ATIS: Automated Terminal Information System – Provides continuous broadcast of an airport’s
current weather.
AVGAS: Aviation gasoline
AWOS: Automated Weather Observing System – Primary surface weather observing system in
the U.S.
CAL/OSHA: California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CIP: Capital Improvement Program
CUP: Conditional Use Permit
DME: Distance measuring equipment – Aircraft navigation equipment
DNL: Day-Night Average Sound – Decibel measurement determining noise.
DOA: Division of Aeronautics (part of the California Department of Transportation – Caltrans)
EHLF: Emergency helicopter landing facility
EMS: Emergency medical service
ENG: Electronic news gathering
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
FAR: Federal Aviation Regulation
FARA: Final approach reference area
A-11
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
FATO: Final approach and takeoff area
FBO: Fixed Base Operator
FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact – Determination by the FAA that a proposed action has
no significant impact on the environment.
FSDO: Flight Standards District Office (FAA)
GAL General Aviation – Civil aviation except air carrier or air taxi.
GPS: Global Positioning System
HAI: Helicopter Association International
HRP: Heliport reference point
ICAO: International Council of Aviation Officials
IFR: Instrument flight rules
ILS: Instrument landing system
IMC: Instrument Meteorological Conditions
MALSR: Medium Intensity Approach Light System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights
MGTOW: Maximum gross takeoff weight
MHz Megahertz
MSL: Elevation above Mean Sea Level
MUP: Major use permit
NAVAID: Navigational Aid
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NOTAM: Notice to Airmen – Notice containing airport/airspace information.
NOTAR: “No tailrotor” technology
NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board
OE: Obstruction evaluation
OSHPD: Office of Statewide Healthcare Planning and Development (California)
PART 139: Federal regulations for airports serving air carrier aircraft.
PCL: Pilot-controlled lighting
PVT: Private Use
PUC: Public Utilities Code
SWPPP: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TLA: Three-letter acronym
TLOF: Touchdown and liftoff area
TSA: Transportation Security Administration
UHF: Ultra high frequency
VASI Visual approach slope indicator
VHF: Very high frequency
VFR: Visual flight rules
VMC: Visual Meteorological Conditions
VOR: Very high frequency omnirange
Z/ZULU: Greenwich Mean Time
A-12
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX A
Sources
FAR 1
: Federal Aviation Regulations Part 1, Definitions and Abbreviations. (1993)
AIM
: Airman's Information Manual, Pilot/Controller Glossary. (1993)
Airport Design
: Federal Aviation Administration. Airport Design. Advisory Circular 150/5300-13,
Change 11. (2007)
FAA ATA
: Federal Aviation Administration.Air Traffic Activity. (1986)
FAA Census
: Federal Aviation Administration. Census of U.S. Civil Aircraft. (1986)
FAA Stats
: Federal Aviation Administration. Statistical Handbook of Aviation. (1984)
NTSB
: National Transportation Safety Board. U.S. NTSB 830-3. (1989)
A-13
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
B
B
ß°°»²¼·¨
Supplemental Financial Analysis
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
Supplemental Financial Analysis
FY 2011 - 2015
Background and Purpose
Chapter 5, Financial Feasibility Analysis of the 2008 Eugene Airport Master Plan Update presents a
financial feasibility analysis that demonstrates the Airport’s capacity to undertake the proposed capital
improvement plan generated as the result of the findings of this planning effort. This plan anticipates an
investment of approximately $119.4 million during the 20-year planning period to complete identified
aviation safety, preservation, security, and capacity enhancement projects.
Subsequent to finalizing this Master Plan Update significant shifts in national, state and local economic
conditions occurred which negatively affected aviation activity at Eugene Airport (EUG). These events,
coupled with the fact that sustainable Airport Improvement Program (AIP) reauthorization legislation has
not been enacted at the federal level, have altered the focus and scope of the proposed capital
improvement plan presented in Chapter 5. Despite these events, EUG has completed several projects
identified in this plan and is coordinating a revised five year capital improvement plan with the FAA.
Moreover, the Airport is seeking grant-in-aid funds from the State of Oregon to construct its proposed
rental car service facility in lieu of incurring debt to complete this project.
Given that local governing bodies are scheduled to hold public work sessions on the Airport Master Plan
during the first quarter of 2010, Airport management requested that a supplemental analysis of the
Airport’s financial plan be undertaken to ensure that the revised five (5) year capital improvement
program is sustainable and viable both from a capital and operational perspective. Accordingly, this
supplemental analysis evaluates the Airport’s capacity to:
Complete its revised FY 2011-2015 capital improvement plan
Generate sufficient revenues to fund all anticipated operating expenses
Make required annual contributions to its established reserve funds
The techniques utilized in Chapter 5 of this Master Plan Update are reflected in this supplemental
analysis to ensure its findings are consistent and valid.
B-1
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
Overview of the Airport’s Operating Financial Results FY 2008 - Present
The single-most negative impact for EUG created by changing national, state and local economic
conditions was a 14.6 percent decline in passenger activity in FY 2009. Reduced passenger levels
influenced the loss of approximately $900,000 in overall revenues (11.9%) between FY 2008 and FY
2009. Lower automobile parking fees, airline landing fee collections, airline terminal building fees and
food/beverage concession fees were primarily responsible for this reduced level of funding. While
operating revenues lagged, the Airport experienced an increase in operating expenditures of
approximately $400,000 or 7.2 percent during this period. Salaries and labor increased because of
obligations contained in the Airport’s current labor agreement as well as the hiring of 3.5 full-time
equivalent positions in the Airport’s Maintenance Division needed to address the evolving workload
associated with the mission of this Department. Additionally, the Airport’s payment to the City of Eugene
for central services increased 38 percent or $139,000.
Despite declining revenues and increased expenditures, EUG met all required expenditure obligations
and was capable of making payments to its required reserve funds including a $124,500 contribution to its
Operating and Capital Reserve Fund. Of equal importance is the fact that the Airport achieved positive
financial results during this difficult period void of increasing airline rates and charges. As noted earlier,
all sources of airline revenue were generally down over FY 2008 due in most part to management’s
proactive decision to hold airline rates and fees constant in recognition of the need to maintain EUG’s
favorable operating environment for its carriers.
Thus far in FY 2010, both passenger activity and revenue performance appear to have stabilized as
reflected by the fact that fourth quarter of calendar year 2009 was especially strong for EUG. Mid-year
forecasts of revenues and expenditures reveal that EUG should meet budgeted amounts for revenues
and expenditures while enplanements should total approximately 349,000 representing a 5.4 percent
increase over FY 2009. Although these trends are quite positive, it is important to recognize that should
this growth be sustained during the remaining six months of this fiscal year, EUG’s passenger totals will
essentially mirror results for FY 2006 when 360,258 boardings were experienced while total Airport
revenues will achieve levels consistent with FY 2007 levels.
The Revised FY 2011-15 Capital Improvement Plan
The FY 2011-15 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) described in Chapter 5 projects the need for $35.9
million in federal and local funds to complete a host of projects. It includes a phased expansion of the
terminal building to accommodate three (3) additional airline gates as well as expansion of the airline
ramp area for aircraft parking. The cumulative cost of these projects represents approximately $25.0
million of this $35.9 million plan. Due to the decrease in passenger activity in FY 2009 and an expected
slow recovery period, these capacity-related projects have been removed from the revised five year
planning horizon. Furthermore, the issuance of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) backed bonds for these
projects has also been delayed due to this change. In fact, no additional borrowing is anticipated through
FY 2016; indicating that EUG will remain debt-free during this period.
B-2
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
Table B-1
The revised capital improvement plan presented in of this supplemental analysis suggests that
the Eugene Airport will focus its capital funding on projects which primarily preserve existing
airfield/landside infrastructure. Of the twelve (12) projects programmed to be undertaken, five (5) are
designed to preserve existing airfield pavement while other projects are aimed at modernizing the
Airport’s fleet of snow removal equipment, constructing an aircraft deicing containment area and aircraft
wash station, and addressing storm water drainage needs. Two projects are designed to enhance the
Airport’s taxiway system through the widening of Taxiway K and reconstruction of Taxilane E to the North
.
Ramp In FY2014, the Airport is slated to complete its only terminal building capacity-related project
when it expands the airline baggage claim area.
In order to complete projects during this five year period, an investment of $20.9 million is programmed
from the following sources:
Funding Source Amount Percent
FAA Entitlement $13.7 Million 66%
FAA Discretionary $4.7 Million 22%
Passenger Facility Charge $2.5 Million 12%
Although reduced by $15.0 million from the program envisioned in Chapter 5, EUG’s revised FY2011-
2015 capital improvement plan represents a responsible and manageable program which will yield
positive results for Airport users. Since the Airport’s current PFC program expires on November 30, 2011
and does not include projects listed in the FY2011-2015 plan, an amendment to the Airport’s existing PFC
program or preparation of an application for new PFC impose and use authority in the amount of $2.5
million is required. Moreover, because projects listed in this revised plan are not currently included in a
PFC plan, the Airport will need to temporarily utilize $390,000 in its Capital & Operating Reserve as local
matching funds for the South Ramp Rehabilitation and Runway 34L/16R Overlay projects in FY2011.
Upon approval and collection of sufficient PFC revenues, this amount can be reimbursed to this reserve
fund. Since the Runway 16R/34L Overlay Project is considered a high priority project for FAA funding, it
is very likely that the required $4.7 million in FAA discretionary funding will be allocated for this project.
Table B-2
provides a forecast of FAA entitlement funds and PFC revenues to be collected during this five
year period. As noted, $2,751,263 in annual FAA Entitlements is programmed for this five year period.
This level of funding is consistent with direction provided by the FAA Seattle District Office and assumes
that annual enplanement levels reach 379,100 each fiscal year. Because FAA entitlement funds
presented in this revised plan are not based on forecast passenger activity as in Chapter 5, any shortfall
in federal grant-in-aid created from not achieving this level of passenger activity will require FAA
Discretionary funds and/or supplemental PFC revenues to complete the planned improvements. Should
additional PFC funds be required, additional impose authority will need to be approved for EUG.
B-3
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
B-4
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
Table B-2
Eugene Airport
Master Plan Update
PROJECTED AIRPORT ENTITLEMENT FUNDS
AND PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE REVENUE
Projected Passenger
FiscalProjectedEnplanementsEntitlementFacilityTotal
YearEnplanements 1/(2 yrs. Prior)Funds 2/Charges 3/Funds
2011 356,737 331,875$2,751,263$0$2,751,263
2012 364,585 349,058$2,751,263$840,278$3,591,541
2013 372,606 356,737$2,751,263$1,472,168$4,223,431
2014 380,804 364,585$2,751,263$156,054$2,907,317
2015 389,181 372,606$2,751,263$0$2,751,263
TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUE$13,756,315$2,468,500$16,224,815
Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc.
Note: 1/ Includes charters.
2/ Entitlement Funds are per FAA direction & not reflective of forecast enplaned passengers.
3/ Assumes a net collection of $4.39 per eligible enplaned passenger.
Assumes 90 percent of the Airport's enplanements are eligible for PFC collection.
B-5
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
Table B-3
, entitled, Capital Improvement Plan Funding Analysis, depicts the capacity of the Airport’s PFC
program to absorb any shortfall in FAA entitlement funds should enplanements not achieve the level
sufficient to generate $2.75 million per year. As presented, the Airport’s authority to impose a PFC is
scheduled to continue beyond November 2011. If this is achieved, sufficient funding for the local match
required for this plan is achieved by the first quarter of fiscal year 2014. Accordingly, should FAA
entitlement funds lag due to enplanements not meeting expectations, or should FAA Discretionary
funding not be made available, the Airport is capable of extending PFC authority in order to address any
shortfall. Table B-3 further depicts the transfer of local funds in FY2011 to match anticipated FAA grants
and how this temporary transfer is capable of being refunded by PFC receipts in the subsequent year.
Table B-3
Eugene Airport
Master Plan Update
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FUNDING ANALYSIS
Cumulative
Entitlement
CapitalRequiredFundingAnticipatedPassengerRequiredAnnualRequired
ImprovementFAASurplusFAAFacility PFCPFCLocal
YearCostsEntitlements(Shortfall)Discretionary 1/Charges 2/FundsBalanceFunds 2/
2011$7,800,000$2,751,263$0$4,658,737$0$390,000-$390,000$390,000
2012$2,895,000$2,750,250$1,013$0$840,278$144,750$305,528$0
2013$2,855,000$2,712,250$41,039$0$1,472,168$142,750$1,634,946$0
2014$4,420,000$2,774,000$59,341$0$156,054$1,646,000$145,000$0
2015$2,900,000$2,755,000$114,945$0$0$145,000$0$0
CIP TOTAL$20,870,000$13,742,763$4,658,737$2,468,500$2,468,500$0$0
Sources: City of Eugene, Department of Public Works
Mead & Hunt, Inc.
Notes: 1/ It is anticipated that no surplus/shortfall will be experieced in these revenue sources over the planning period.
2/ A detailed cash-flow analysis that examines the Airport's ability to fund the required local share of project costs
from the Operating and Capital and Depreciation Reserve Funds that the Airport maintains will be presented later
in this analysis.
Historical and Projected Airport Revenues
Tables 5-4 and 5-5 of the Master Plan Update present historical and anticipated revenues for EUG.
Historical revenue trends were calculated for the period FY 2003-2009 (Budget) while the forecast period
considered fiscal years 2010-2016. As noted in these tables, total Airport revenue for FY 2008 and FY
2009 was expected to total $7,146,353 and $7,134,010 respectively. Audited actual results, presented in
Table B-4
, totaled $7,613,965 for FY 2008 and $6,718,224 in FY 2009. While actual results for FY 2008
exceeded expectations, this gain was more than offset by a precipitous 11.4 percent drop in revenues
experienced in FY 2009. Despite these variations, annual percentage growth rates for airport revenues
B-6
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
Table B-4
Eugene Airport
Master Plan Update
HISTORICAL AND BUDGETED AIRPORT REVENUES
BudgetCAGRCAGR
20062007200820092010FY06-FY10FY03-FY09
AIRLINE REVENUES
LANDING AREA
Airline Landing Fees - Scheduled $1,138,042$970,393$1,014,834$948,866$952,691-4%2%
COMMON USE AREAS
Airline Common Use Fee605,576 671,876 714,754 733,330 671,0853%5%
Airline Security Charges 133,134 114,774 123,430 163,105 147,1413%7%
TERMINAL AREA
Airline Leased & Joint Use Areas 926,170 678,011 722,086 675,385 676,580-8%-3%
PREVIOUS YEAR AIRLINE ADJUSTMENTS (67,982) (258,977) (30,481) (263,964)
-
Total Airline Revenue$2,734,940$2,176,077$2,544,623$2,256,722$2,447,497
-3%2%
NON-AIRLINE REVENUES
AIRFIELD AREA
Hangar Rentals$152,146$230,439$201,811$133,693$178,7454%0%
Fuel Flow Fees 51,653 49,534 51,627 35,802 50,200-1%3%
Tie-Down Fees 10,281 10,220 10,084 9,124 8,558-4%-1%
Fixed Based Operators 63,594 61,444 63,994 51,241 33,937-15%0%
Ground Fuel 8,393 2,206 2,208 1,179 -30%7%2,010
Non-Airline Landing Fees 102,423 81,298 85,357 103,761 89,000-3%-3%
TERMINAL AREA
Rental Auto Concessions$803,351$813,260$871,892$908,507$1,031,2956%5%
Food and Beverage Services 62,082 56,176 120,085 70,681 118,00017%5%
Miscellaneous Terminal Facilities 226,375 229,060 271,875 217,001 227,1800%4%
Security-LEO Reimbursement/Fingerprints278,178 318,524 236,319 255,888 224,108-5%
PARKING AREA
Public Parking Facility$2,308,328$2,378,751$2,770,148$2,379,661$2,358,5001%8%
ADMINISTRATION
Administative Revenue (Interest)$269,233
OTHER AREAS
Other Building Rentals$228,917$236,530$223,765$228,694$222,123-1%8%
Other Land Rentals 83,807 78,128 80,629 14,571 81,715-1%-1%
Miscellaneous Revenue (64,759) 155,474 79,548 51,699 35,43931%
2%5%
Total Non-Airline Revenue$4,314,769$4,970,277$5,069,342$4,461,502$4,660,810
0%2%
TOTAL AIRPORT REVENUE$7,049,709$7,146,354$7,613,965$6,718,224$7,108,307
356,830 363,785 387,433 331,875 349,058
AIRLINE COST PER ENPLANEMENT$7.66$5.98$6.57$6.80$7.01
Source: City of Eugene, Department of Public Works
CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate
B-7
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
for the periods examined continued on the order of 2 percent. Overall Airport revenue grew from $6.6
million in FY 2003 to $7.0 million in FY 2006. Between FY 2006 and 2010 (Budget), Airport revenues
were essentially flat after spiking in FY 2008 to $7.6 million only to decrease to FY 2006 levels in the
following year. The following presents the annual compounded annual growth rates in overall Airport
revenues for the period FY 2003-09, FY 2006-10 (Budget) and FY 2008-10 (Budget):
FY 2003-09 FY 2006-10 FY 2008-10
Total Airport Revenues
2% 0% -3%
For the period FY 2006-2010 (Budget), aircraft hangar rentals and rental car auto concessions
experienced solid annual growth rates of 4 and 6 percent respectively while Fixed Base Operators,
building land rentals and automobile parking concession revenues were unchanged. Historical trends for
airline revenue continue to reflect EUG’s efforts at reducing its reliance on these sources of revenue for
its operation. In FY 2003, airline revenue totaled $3.1 million and represented 47.5 percent of all Airport
revenues. FY 2009 revenues collected from airlines totaled $2.3 million; however, represented only 34
percent of overall Airport operating revenues.
As shown in Table 5-5, total revenues for EUG were projected to increase from $7,296,261 in FY 2009 to
$9,636,043 in FY 2016; representing a compounded annual growth rate of 4.0 percent.
Revenue trends experienced during the period FY 2006-2010 (Budget) as well as FY 2008-2010 (Budget)
complicate forecasting of future revenue; however, based upon the positive trends experienced in FY
2010, it is reasonable to expect that EUG will meet its FY 2010 budget estimates and attain an annual
compounded growth rate of 3.0 percent during the next five years. Such a rate of growth will require on
the order of approximately $180,000 per year of additional revenue to reach the forecasted level of $8.0
Table B-5
million in FY 2015 as detailed in . Attainment of this revenue forecast will require that airline
rates and charges be adjusted 2 percent per year. Such changes in airline rates should be acceptable
provided annual enplanements grow at a rate of 2.2 percent per year; the level of passenger growth
required to maintain airline cost per enplaned passenger levels at the current competitive level of
approximately $7.00.
B-8
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
B-9
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
Historical and Projected Airport Operating Expenses
Chapter 5 also analyzes historical and projected operating expenses for EUG in Tables 5-6and 5-7.
When this plan was originally published, it was expected that total operating expenses would equal $6.3
million in FY 2008 and $6.6 million in FY 2009. Actual results for these two (2) fiscal years were $5.9
million and $6.3 million respectively; both significantly below forecast. As previously noted, salaries and
labor drove the majority of expenditure increases between FY 2008 and FY 2009 due to increases in
salaries and the addition of 3 full-time equivalent positions for the Maintenance Division. The following
presents the annual compounded annual growth rates in overall Airport expenses for the period FY 2003-
09, FY 2006-10 (Budget) and FY 2008-10 (Budget):
FY 2003-09 FY 2006-10 FY 2008-10
Total Airport Expenses
4% 6% 8%
Major expenditure variables between FY 2008 and FY 2010 generated the annual increase of 8 percent
for this period:
Salaries & labor increased $368,000
Benefits increased $114,000
Materials & Supplies increased $100,000
Contractual Services increased $269,000
Central Allocation Services increased $150,000
EUG, like many local governing bodies, is experiencing significant and ongoing increases in employee
benefit costs as contributions to health insurance plans and defined benefit plans continue to rise.
Although these expenditure categories are growing significantly, personnel expenditures (salaries and
labor and benefits) comprise 56 percent of the Airport’s operating expenses which compares favorably to
other local government jurisdictions that oftentimes expend 65-70 percent of budgeted funds on
employee compensation and benefits.
Although actual operating results for FY 2008-09 were more favorable than expected in the forecast
contained in Table 5-6, Airport expenses continued to grow at an annualized rate of 4 percent for the
period FY 2003 – FY 2009. For the forecast period of FY 2011 – FY 2015, Table 5-7 projects that
Table B-6 and
expenditures will grow at an annualized rate of 4 percent from $7.2 million to $8.8 million.
B-7
, which unlike Chapter 5 does not anticipate additional positions to be added to Airport staff during this
period, indicates that overall Airport expenditures will total $7.7 million by the end of this period yielding a
savings of $1.1 million over the original forecast.
B-10
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
B-11
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
B-12
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
Cash Flow Analysis and Overall Feasibility
Table 5-9 of the Master Plan Update details anticipated cash flow from operating activities for the period
FY 2009-FY 2016. This analysis forecasts that net operating revenue will increase from $596,322 to
$2.024 million in FY 2016. It further details programmed debt service associated with the issuance of
PFC-backed bonds in FY 2011 and FY 2014 for capacity-related projects associated with improvements
to the terminal access road and phased expansions to the terminal building. Collectively, debt service of
$7.9 million was expected to be made during this period from both PFC as well as general Airport
revenues. Finally, this plan displays the capacity of EUG to make deposits of $800,723 to its Operating
and Capital Reserve Fund during the period FY 2011-2015.
Table B-8
The revised plan described in this supplemental analysis () assumes no debt will be issued by
EUG in the next five (5) years. Since debt financed projects are not scheduled to be undertaken, EUG
will be capable of enhancing its reserve balances for its Operating & Maintenance Reserve Fund as well
as Operating and Capital Reserve Fund. As presented, contributions to this fund are expected to range
from approximately $750,000 to $290,000 during this period. Increasing the available balance in the
Operating and Capital Reserve Fund could enable EUG to pursue cash-only projects in Years 6-10 of its
Capital Improvement Plan and forgo issuance of debt for projects. In addition, continuation of accruing
two (2) months of operating fund reserves in the O&M Reserve Fund enables EUG to be positioned for
uncertain economic conditions.
Table B-8
Eugene Airport
Master Plan Update
PROJECTED AIRPORT CASH FLOW FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Projected
20112012201320142015
CASH FLOW - OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Airport Revenue$7,287,657$7,471,922$7,661,240$7,855,755$8,055,614
Operating Expense 6,591,254 6,854,073 7,128,429 7,414,870 7,713,976
Net Revenue$696,403$617,849$532,812$440,885$341,638
Deposit to O&M Reserve Fund 52,385 (43,803) (45,726) (47,740) (49,851)
Deposit to Operating and Capital Reserve Fund$748,788$574,045$487,086$393,145$291,787
Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc.
B-13
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
Table B-9
, like Table 5-10, presents an analysis of the anticipated sources, uses and balance of funds to
be used to implement EUG’s revised recommended CIP through FY2015. Both reveal that EUG is
capable of undertaking the projects detailed for this five year planning horizon while at the same time
meet expenditure obligations and make deposits to required reserve funds. As previously described,
EUG does have additional capacity in its PFC program to fund potential reductions in FAA funding.
Moreover, the balance in the Airport’s Operating and Capital Fund should increase from approximately
$6.5 million in FY 2011 to $8.3 million in FY 2015.
Table B-9
Eugene Airport
Master Plan Update
PROJECTED AIRPORT CASH FLOW - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Projected
20112012201320142015
CASH FLOW - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SOURCES OF FUNDS - CUMULATIVE BALANCE (Current contribution plus previous year-end balance)
Federal AIP Entitlement Funds$2,751,263$2,751,263$2,751,263$2,751,263$2,751,263
Federal AIP Discretionary Funds 4,658,7370000
Passenger Facility Charge Revenues 840,278- 1,472,168 156,054
-
Operating and Capital Reserves 6,532,638 7,106,683 7,593,769 7,986,914 8,278,701
Other Funds0
Total Sources of Funds$13,942,638$10,698,225$11,817,200$10,894,232$11,029,964
USES OF FUNDS
Federal AIP Entitlement Funds$2,751,263$2,750,250$2,712,250$2,774,000$2,755,000
Federal AIP Entitlement Carryover Funds - 22,737 3,737
Federal AIP Discretionary Funds 4,658,737 -
- -
Passenger Facility Charges 534,750 142,750 1,646,000 145,000
Operating and Capital Reserves 390,000
- - - -
Local Funds
Total Uses of Funds$7,800,000$3,285,000$2,855,000$4,442,737$2,903,737
BALANCE OF GRANTS AND OTHER FUNDS AT YEAR END
Federal AIP Entitlement Funds 1/$0$1,013$41,039$59,341$114,945
Passenger Facility Charges 305,528- 1,634,946 145,000 0
Operating and Capital Reserves 6,142,638$7,106,6837,593,769 7,986,914 8,278,701
Source: Mead & Hunt, Inc.
Note: 1/ Entitlements not used in year received can be carried over for three years.
B-14
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)
SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B
Conclusion
Based upon the findings of this supplemental analysis, EUG is projected to produce sufficient revenues to
meet all anticipated operating expenses between FY 2011-2015 while at the same time make required
deposits to established reserve funds. The cash balance of the Airport should be further strengthened
during this period through continued annual growth in operating revenues of 3 percent each year.
Operating expenditures, while growing at an annualized rate of 4 percent, should remain at a level which
will enable the Airport to produce net income necessary for funding the aforementioned reserve funds.
Provided FAA airport entitlement funds are allocated as described herein and the Airport’s PFC program
is extended to collect $2.5 million in revenues, EUG is expected to have adequate resources to complete
the revised Capital Improvement Plan as presented. In summary, through the foregoing analysis,
including the underlying assumptions through which it was generated, the revised CIP for EUG is
expected to be both feasible and implementable.
B-15
Eugene Airport Master Plan Update
(February 2010)