Draft EUG Master Plan Update, February 2010

Home Browse Search

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)