Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 101 of 159 FIGURE 4-7 RUNWAY 31 RPZ Source: Garver, 2018. Considerations for ensuring the airport has sufficient control over the existing and ultimate RPZs will be considered in the Alternatives Chapter. TAXIWAY DESIGN STANDARDS In general, taxiway design can be segmented into two general categories: Taxiway Pavement Geometric Design Taxiway Design Based Aircraft Design Group (ADG) Each of these design categories play a critical role in evaluating the sufficiency of taxiway pavements at an airport both now and in the future.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 102 of 159 TAXIWAY PAVEMENT GEOMETRIC DESIGN Taxiway pavement geometric design is complex because it is largely based on landing gear configurations which vary widely amongst different aircraft types. The FAA has classified the numerous variations of land gear configurations into eight Taxiway Design Groups (TDG) that now guide taxiway pavement design. EXISTING TAXIWAY PAVEMENT GEOMETRIC DESIGN Taxiway pavement design standards have changed significantly over the past ten years. Prior to 2012, taxiway pavement design was based on Aircraft Design Group (ADG), which categorizes aircraft based on wingspan and tail height. In 2012, when TDG standards came into effect, taxiway pavement design and fillet dimensions changed significantly. These standards went through another minor revision in 2014. The most significant changes that occurred as a result of the transition from ADG to TDG based pavement design standards, were that the requirements for taxiway fillet dimensions increased and the general layout for pavement fillets changed. Consequently, at many airports, any taxiway pavements that were designed prior to 2012 do not meet the current TDG based standards. The taxiways at HOT are no different. The majority of the taxiway fillets at HOT are designed to the old ADG based standards. As a result, as these taxiway pavements are re-constructed, they need to be updated dimensionally to current TDGbased standards. Table 4-7 shows the TDG of some of the large aircraft that operated at HOT in 2017: TABLE 4-7 EXISTING FLEET MIX MTOWAND GEAR CONFIGURATIONS AIRCRAFT TDGCATEGORY CHALLENGER 601 2 FALCON10 2 HAWKER800 2 BEECHJET 400 1A GULFSTREAM IV 2 Source: Aircraft manufacturer websites. The majority of the large aircraft operations that occurred at HOT in 2017 fall into the TDG 2 category. Consequently, TDG 2 taxiway design standards should be used for the future development of HOT’s taxiways.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 103 of 159 Table 4-8 shows the FAA TDG II standards for Taxiway Design. TABLE 4-8 TDG II DESIGN STANDARDS DESIGN CATEGORY DIMENSIONS (FT) TAXIWAY WIDTH 35 TAXIWAY EDGE SAFETY MARGIN 7.5 TAXIWAY SHOULDER WIDTH 15 TAXIWAY C/L RADIUS 75 Source: FAA AC 150/5300-13A The taxiway pavement section for Taxiway Alpha currently being constructed is 4 inches of hot mix asphalt surface course over 5 inches of hot mix asphalt base course over 11 inches of crushed aggregate base course which was designed to provide a pavement strength for 210,000 pound dual-tandem aircraft. This pavement strength is expected to be sufficient throughout the forecast period, and all future taxiway projects should be designed to provide similar pavement strength capacity. TAXIWAY PAVEMENT DESIGN ANALYSIS As previously mentioned, many of the taxiways at HOT were originally designed prior to the implementation of the new TDG based pavement design standards. Consequently, as taxiway pavement reconstruction projects are initiated on the taxiways currently designed to the old ADG based standards, the taxiway fillets should be updated to the current TDG II standards. TAXIWAY DESIGN STANDARDS BASED ON AIRCRAFT DESIGN GROUP (ADG) While taxiway pavement design is based on TDG, Taxiway Safety Areas (TSA), Taxiway Object Free Areas (TOFAs), and separation standards are still based on the Aircraft Design Group (ADG) of the critical aircraft for a given taxiway. Unlike TDG, ADG is based on aircraft wingspan and tail height and not landing gear configuration. The vast majority of the taxiways at HOT were originally designed and have been maintained to ADG III standards (118 ft. wide TSAs and 186 ft. wide TOFA). According to the Airport Certification Manual, Taxiways J, H, M and the southeast portion of E are designed and maintained to ADG II standards (79 ft. wide TSA and 131 ft. wide TOFA) as they are only 50 ft. wide while the other taxiways are 75 ft. or more wide. Based on the forecast in Chapter 3, the future critical aircraft at HOT is in the ADG II category. All taxiways meet ADG II design standards.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 104 of 159 TAXIWAY SEPARATION STANDARDS Portions of Taxiways Alpha and Echo are parallel to Runways 5-23 and 13-31 respectively and are therefore subject to runway to parallel taxiway separation standards. Taxiway Alpha is located 500 feet from Runway 5-23 and Taxiway Echo is located 550 feet from Runway 13-31. The taxiway separations required by the approaches and design groups for the runways are actually smaller than what exists, so the alignment of the parallel portions of the taxiways are non-standard. Taxiway Alpha should be located 400 feet from the centerline of Runway 5/23 and Taxiway Echo should be located 240 feet from the centerline of Runway 13-31. Greater than required taxiway separations limits the amount of aeronautical development that can be accomplished in that area. Alternatives to standardize separations will be considered. Table 4-9 below provides an overview of the ADG II requirements applicable to HOT and the dimensions the TSA and TOFA currently maintained. TABLE 4-9 TAXIWAY STANDARDS BASED ON AIRCRAFT DESIGN GROUP TAXIWAY TSA (FT) TOFA (FT) CURRENT FAA STANDARD STANDARD MET (Y/N) CURREN T FAA STANDARD STANDARD MET (Y/N) A 118 118 Y 186 186 Y B 118 118 Y 259 186 Y C 118 118 Y 186 186 Y D 118 118 Y 186 186 Y E (SE of 5/23) 79 79 Y 131 131 Y E(NW of 5/23) 150 118 Y 259 186 Y F 150 118 Y 259 186 Y G 79 79 Y 131 131 Y H 79 79 Y 131 131 Y J 150 118 Y 259 186 Y K 150 118 Y 259 186 Y L 150 118 Y 259 186 Y M 79 79 Y 131 131 Y Source: Garver, 2018. Currently, all design standards for taxiway, excluding fillet standards are met. As taxiways are updated or rehabilitated, fillets should be improved to current standards. TAXIWAY CONFIGURATION ISSUES Based on research, the FAA has identified a number of taxiway layout/configuration issues that have been shown to cause pilot confusion which can lead to safety issues such as runway incursions. ID and discuss taxiway layout/configuration issues.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 105 of 159 Each of these intersections are showing in Figure 4–8 and Figure 4-9. TABLE 4-9 TAXIWAY STANDARDS BASED ON AIRCRAFT DESIGN GROUP TAXIWAY TSA (FT) TOFA (FT) CURRENT FAA STANDARD STANDARD MET (Y/N) CURRENT FAA STANDARD STANDARD MET (Y/N) A 118 118 Y 186 186 Y B 118 118 Y 259 186 Y C 118 118 Y 186 186 Y D 118 118 Y 186 186 Y E (SE of 5/23) 79 79 Y 131 131 Y E(NW of 5/23) 150 118 Y 259 186 Y F 150 118 Y 259 186 Y G 79 79 Y 131 131 Y H 79 79 Y 131 131 Y J 150 118 Y 259 186 Y K 150 118 Y 259 186 Y L 150 118 Y 259 186 Y M 79 79 Y 131 131 Y Source: Garver, 2018. Currently, all design standards for taxiway, excluding fillet standards are met. As taxiways are updated or rehabilitated, fillets should be improved to current standards. TAXIWAY CONFIGURATION ISSUES Based on research, the FAA has identified a number of taxiway layout/configuration issues that have been shown to cause pilot confusion which can lead to safety issues such as runway incursions. ID and discuss taxiway layout/configuration issues. Each of these intersections are showing in Figure 4–8 and Figure 4-9.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 106 of 159 FIGURE 4-8 DIRECT RAMP TO RUNWAY ACCESS AT TAXIWAY F Source: Garver, 2017. FIGURE 4-9 DIRECT RAMP TO RUNWAY ACCESS AND CONFUSING INTERSECTION AT TAXIWAY F Source: Garver, 2017.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 107 of 159 These issues will be addressed in the alternatives section of the document. No other prohibited/not-recommended taxiway configurations exist at HOT. AIRFIELD LIGHTING, MARKING, AND SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS Sufficient and accurate airfield marking, lighting and signage is essential to maintaining a high level of safety in an airport’s daily operation. In this section the existing airfield lighting, marking, and signage will be reviewed in light of the established activity forecast to determine where improvements need to be made. RUNWAY LIGHTING, MARKING, AND SIGNAGE Runway marking and lighting requirements vary based on the utilization characteristics of a runway including each runway’s critical aircraft and instrument approaches. Runway 5/23 is equipped with High Intensity incandescent Runway Lights (HIRLs) as is required for runways having a precision instrument approach. Runway 13/31 is equipped with Medium Intensity incandescent Runway Lights (MIRLs). The lights for both runways meet the requirement for the traffic and approaches for each runway; however, the condition of both are nearing the end of life. Runway 13/31 lights were replaced in 2008, and are approximately 10 years old, but the Runway 5/23 lights are much older. A rehabilitation project for the lights on 5/23 was completed in 2003. It is recommended that the Runway 5/23 lights be replaced along with the regulators and other electrical vault equipment. Runway 5 is marked with precision instrument markings, and Runway 23 has non-precision instrument markings. Runway 13/31 has basic/visual runway markings. Both runways meet the requirements for the approaches and traffic using each. A pavement marking rehabilitation project was completed in 2014, but the markings should continue to be maintained and updated, as necessary. TAXIWAY LIGHTING, MARKING, AND SIGNAGE Taxiway Lighting at HOT consists of medium intensity incandescent taxiway lighting. Some of the taxiway lighting fixtures are older quartz type fixtures. The taxiway lighting meets the standards for the type of aircraft and approaches using the airfield, but they are nearing the end of their life, and should be evaluated for replacement in the near term. The taxiway regulators and vault equipment should be upgraded as necessary when the lights are rehabilitated. The existing can and conduit structure should be evaluated, rehabilitated and reused as much as possible. The taxiways at HOT are marked with enhanced centerline markings and runway hold short markings. Additionally, Taxiway A, near the end of Runway 5 is also marked with ILS hold short markings. All taxiway markings meet requirements for the types of aircraft and approaches for each runway except for the hold short signs for Runway 13/31 which should be located at 200’ from the runway centerline instead of 150’. Alternatives to correct the
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 108 of 159 hold position locations will be examined in the alternatives chapter. The airfield at HOT has lighted directional signage including lighted runway hold signs, runway and taxiway identification signs, and directional signs to the apron and parking areas. A project to replace the signs was completed in 2014. It is recommended that when the current signs need rehabilitation, they be replaced with LED-lighted signs to enhance sustainability and reduce energy consumption at the airport. APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEMS An Approach Lighting System (ALS) provides the basic means to transition from instrument flight to visual flight for landing. ALS are a configuration of signal lights starting at the landing threshold and extending into the approach area a distance of 2,400-3,000 feet for precision instrument runways and 1,400-1,500 feet for non-precision instrument runways. Some systems include sequenced flashing lights that appear to the pilot as a ball of light traveling towards the runway at high speed, blinking twice per second. Operational requirements dictate the sophistication and configuration of the ALS for a particular runway. Depending on the type of approach, certain ALS are required to aide pilots in the identification of the airport environment during instrument meteorological conditions. These requirements are found in FAA AC 150/5300-13 (current edition) Airport Design. It should be noted that ALS systems are required for runways with precision instrument approaches. The Runway 5 ILS approach is served by a MALSR approach lighting system. The MALSR was installed in 2000, and the localizer shelter was installed in 2005 according to AIP grant history for HOT. FAA maintains the MALSR equipment, so no recommendations will be made for alterations by the airport in this plan. There are no deficiencies in the approach lighting system for HOT. RUNWAY END IDENTIFIER LIGHTS Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) provide rapid and positive identification of the approach end of a runway. The system consists of a pair of synchronized flashing white strobes located laterally along the runway threshold. REILs are typically installed along with threshold lights at each runway end. REILs are not commonly needed unless an airport is situated in an area of heavy light pollution where identifying the approach end of the runway may be difficult. Runway 13 has Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) available to aid pilots on approach. The Runway 13 REILs were installed in 2008, and are FAA owned and maintained. WIND CONE/SEGMENTED CIRCLE/AIRPORT BEACON HOT has a segmented circle and lighted primary wind cone located near midfield to help pilots identify wind direction. In addition to the lighted primary wind cone, lighted supplemental wind cones are available to pilots near the ends of Runways 5, 23, and 31. The airport beacon is located on top of the abandoned control tower to identify the airfield
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 109 of 159 for approaching aircraft. All lighting at the airport should be considered for replacement with LED technology to improve sustainability and reduce energy consumption as each fixture is rehabilitated or replaced. AIRFIELD LIGHTING VAULT The lighting vault and regulators therein are nearing the end of their useful life and should be programmed for replacement. In development of airfield improvement alternatives, the proper timing of the rehabilitation of the vault and regulators with up-to-date equipment will be considered. Additionally, the existing airfield vault utilizes an outdated 2400V distribution system that requires specific training and knowledge to maintain or repair; there are highvoltage live conductors exposed throughout the vault; and the vault is located on the unsecure/landside of the airport. Replacement of the vault and the regulators therein would be beneficial for maintenance and safety of airport personnel. NAVAIDS Airport Navigation Aids (NAVAIDs) are installed on or near an airport to increase the airport's reliability during night and inclement weather conditions and to provide electronic guidance and visual references for executing an approach to the airport or runway. FAA Order 7031.2C, Airport Planning Standard Number One - Terminal Air Navigation Facilities and Air Traffic Control Services, specifies minimum activity levels to qualify for instrument approach equipment and approach procedures. As forecast in the previous chapter, approximately 6,000 instrument operations (approaches and takeoffs) will be conducted annually under IFR flight rules by the end of the 20-year planning period. The following describes the status of existing and new NAVAIDs used at general aviation airports. VERY HIGH FREQUENCY OMNI-DIRECTIONAL RADIO RANGE The Very High Frequency Omni-Directional Radio Range (VOR/VORTAC) system emits a very high frequency radio signal utilized for both en-route navigation and non-precision approaches. It provides the instrument rated pilot with 360 degrees of azimuth information oriented to magnetic north. Due to the recent development of more precise navigational systems, it is planned to be phased-out by the FAA. The location of the VOR at HOT and the consequent frequency protection zone limits development of prime airport property for aeronautical use. As VOR navigation is being used less and less, it is recommended that alternatives be considered for future decommissioning or relocation of the VOR and future aeronautical development in the currently protected VOR radius. VOR systems are typically located off of airport property. GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM Global positioning system (GPS) is a highly accurate worldwide satellite navigational system that is unaffected by weather and provides point-to-point navigation by encoding
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 110 of 159 transmissions from multiple satellites and ground-based data-link stations using an airborne receiver. GPS is presently FAA-certified for en-route and instrument approaches into numerous airports. The current program provides for GPS stand-alone and overlay approaches where GPS fixes are overlaid on top of an existing approach (typically NDB or VOR approaches). Recently, the selective availability segment of the channel was decommissioned, thereby enhancing the accuracy of the GPS signal. The Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) is being installed at or near airports to provide a signal correction enabling GPS precision approaches (commonly called GPS approaches with LPV minimums). HOT has existing global positioning system (GPS) approach with straight-in minimums to Runway 5, and there are currently three published straight-in or circling instrument approach procedures at HOT. WEATHER OBSERVING SYSTEM Automated Weather Observation Systems (AWOS) and Automated Surface Observation Systems (ASOS) consist of various types of sensors, a processor, a computer-generated voice subsystem, and a transmitter to broadcast minute-by-minute weather data from a fixed location directly to the pilot. The information is transmitted over the voice portion of a local NAVAID (VOR or DME), or a discrete VHF radio frequency. The transmission is broadcast in 20-30 second messages in standard format and can be received within 25- nautical miles of the automated weather site. At airports with instrument procedures, an AWOS/ASOS weather report eliminates the remote altimeter setting penalty, thereby permitting lower minimum descent altitudes (lower approach minimums). These systems should be sited within 500 to 1,000 feet of the primary runway centerline. FAA Order 6560.20B, Siting Criteria for Automated Weather Observing Systems, assists in the site planning for AWOS/ASOS systems. HOT provides weather information through an ASOS that is owned and maintained by FAA. INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS) Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) are a ground-based navigation system, composed of a localizer and glideslope that provide vertical and horizontal guidance to pilots when conducting an instrument approach to a runway during inclement weather. Today, ILS systems are still the primary instrument approach system utilized at commercial service airports across the United States. However, with the FAA’s migration to GPS based approaches and en-route navigation the need for ILS systems is expected to decrease in the future. LOCALIZER SYSTEM (LOC) Localizer systems (LOC) are similar to ILS systems but the glide slope, which provides vertical guidance to pilots when conducting an ILS approach, is not present. Consequently, when conducting a localizer approach a pilot is only provided with horizontal guidance that tells them whether they are properly aligned with the runway centerline.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 111 of 159 The FAA inspects and maintains both the ILS and the LOC at HOT, so no recommendations for alterations to either will be made in this plan. There are currently, no reported issues with the ILS or localizer system. AIRSPACE The term “airspace” is frequently used when discussing the areas surrounding an airport. There are a number of different categories/types of airspace that must be considered as part of the airport master planning process. These include: Airspace Classification for Aeronautical Operators (e.g. Class B, C, D, etc.) FAR Part 77 – Imaginary Surfaces AIRSPACE CLASSIFICATION FOR AERONAUTICAL OPERATORS The current airspace surrounding HOT is classified as Class E airspace for daylight hours and Class G for nighttime hours. As the aeronautical operations levels are not expected to change significantly during the forecast period it is not expected that the current airspace classification will need to be changed during the 20-year planning horizon. FAR PART 77 – IMAGINARY SURFACES The 14 CFR Part 77 entitled “Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace” provides standards and procedures to protect the continued safe and efficient use of airspace. 14 CFR Part 77.19 entitled Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces, defines the 5 civil imaginary surfaces related to airports. To ensure the continued safe and efficient use of the airspace surrounding an airport, it is important that the 5 civil airport imaginary surfaces remain clear of any obstructions that could pose a hazard to air navigation. It should be noted that some objects may be located within an airports imaginary surfaces as long as they have been properly marked/lighted and an airspace review has been completed and determined that the object will not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of the local airspace. The five civil airport imaginary surfaces described in 14 CFR Part 77 are defined below: Primary Surface - A surface longitudinally centered on a runway. When the runway has a specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway; but when the runway has no specially prepared hard surface, the primary surface ends at each end of that runway. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. Approach Surface - A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. An approach surface is applied to each end of each runway based upon the type of approach available or planned for that runway end.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 112 of 159 Horizontal Surface - A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of a specified radii from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway of each airport and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. Conical Surface - A surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. Transitional Surface - These surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces. Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision approach surface which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface, extend a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach surface and at right angles to the runway centerline. Based on the criteria described in 14 CFR Part 77, the 5 civil imaginary surfaces for HOT are described below: Runway 5/23 o Primary Surface – 1,000-foot-wide, centered on the runway and extending 200 feet past either end. o Approach Surface Runway 5 – 1,000 foot wide, beginning at the end of the Primary Surface, and extending outward and upward at a slope of 50:1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet and at a slope of 40:1 for an additional 40,000 feet and widening to a width of 16,000 feet. o Approach Surface Runway 23– 500 foot wide, beginning at the end of the primary surface and flaring to a width of 1,500 feet at a distance of 5,000 feet from the end of the Primary Surface at an upward slope of 20:1. Runway 13/31 o Primary Surface – 500 foot wide, centered on the runway and extending 200 feet past either end. o Approach Surface Runway 13 - 500 foot wide, beginning at the end of the primary surface and flaring to a width of 1,500 feet at a distance of 5,000 feet from the end of the Primary Surface at an upward slope of 20:1. o Approach Surface Runway 31 - 500 foot wide, beginning at the end of the primary surface and flaring to a width of 1,500 feet at a distance of 5,000 feet from the end of the Primary Surface at an upward slope of 20:1. Non-Runway Specific Surfaces o Horizontal Surface – Flat surface established at an elevation 690.1 ft. (150 ft. above field elevation). Perimeter is based on 10,000 ft. arcs swung from the end of Runway 5 and 5,000 ft. arcs swung from the ends of Runway 23 and 13/31. o Conical Surface – Extends from the edges of the Horizontal surface for a horizontal distance of 4,000 ft. at a 20:1 slope.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 113 of 159 o Transitional Surface – Extends from the edges of the primary surface until it reaches the horizontal surfaces and from the edges of the approach surfaces until it reaches the horizontal surface or for a horizontal distance of 5,000 ft. These surfaces are depicted in the Airspace Drawing that is included as part of the Airport Layout Plan. Airspace changes required by additional approached or runway changes will be considered in the development of alternatives. AIRFIELD CAPACITY AND DELAY ANALYSIS The FAA’s standard method for determining airport capacity and delay for long-range planning purposes can be found in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5060-5 (current edition), Airport Capacity and Delay. For this portion of the analysis, generalized airfield capacity was calculated in terms of: Hourly capacity of runways and Annual Service Volume (ASV). This approach utilizes the projections of annual operations by the proposed fleet mix as projected in the Forecast Chapter while considering a variety of other factors that are described below. AIRPORT CHARACTERISTICS In addition to the aviation activity forecasts, a number of an airport’s characteristics and operational considerations are required in order to properly conduct an FAA capacity and delay analysis. These elements include: Runway Configuration, Taxiway Configuration, Aircraft Mix Index, Operational Characteristics, and Meteorological Conditions. When analyzed collectively, the above elements provide the basis for establishing the generalized operational capacity of an airport as expressed by Annual Service Volume. The following sections evaluate each of these characteristics with respect to HOT. RUNWAY CONFIGURATION The runway configuration is one of the primary factors that determine airfield capacity. The capacity of a two or more-runway system is substantially higher than an airport with a single runway. If runways intersect, the capacity is generally not as great as in a parallel runway layout because operations on the second runway are not possible until the aircraft on the first runway has cleared the intersection point.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 114 of 159 HOT’s primary runway is Runway 5/23. Runway 5/23 is intersected by Runway 13/31 approximately 2,840 ft. from the threshold of Runway 23. Since the runways intersect it is not possible for HOT to conduct simultaneous approach and departure operations on both runways during peak periods of traffic where the efficiency of arrivals and departures is critical to maximizing capacity. Consequently, for this capacity analysis Runway 5/23 is considered the primary runway for arrivals and departures and Runway 13/31 would be primarily used for departures during peak periods. TAXIWAY CONFIGURATION The distance an aircraft has to travel to an exit taxiway after landing also sets limits on the airfield capacity. Larger aircraft require more distance to slow to a safe speed before exiting the runway. Thus, they require greater runway occupancy times. If taxiways are placed at the approximate location where the aircraft would reach safe taxiing speed, the aircraft can exit and clear the runway for another user. However, if the taxiway is spaced either too close or too far from the touchdown zone, the aircraft will likely spend more time on the runway than if the taxiway had been in the optimal location. Based on HOT’s current fleet mix, the optimal location for exit taxiways is 2,000 to 4,000 ft. from the landing threshold. This optimal position range is expected to remain unchanged in the near-term (0 – 5 years) but is expected to increase to 3,000 ft to 5,500 ft. from the landing threshold in the 5+ year time frame due to the growth in HOT’s jet traffic. Based on the FAA criteria, the exit factor within the formula is maximized when a runway has four exit taxiways within the optimal range. Currently, for Runway 5/23, HOT has one runway exit within the optimal range (2,000 to 4,000 ft.) for each direction of use (e.g. Runway 5 or Runway 23). As the amount of jet traffic increases the optimal range will change as previously discuss. When this occurs, the number of runway exits within the new optimal range (3,000 to 5,500 ft.) will increase to two runways exits within the optimal range for each direction of use. AIRCRAFT MIX INDEX The operational fleet at an airport influences an airfield’s capacity based upon differing aircraft requirements. Various operational separations are set by the FAA for a number of safety reasons. An airfield’s capacity is the time needed for the aircraft to clear the runway either on arrival or departure. As aircraft size and weight increases, so does the time needed for it to slow to a safe taxing speed or to achieve the needed speed for takeoff. Thus, a larger aircraft generally requires more runway occupancy time than a smaller aircraft. As additional larger aircraft enter an airport’s operating fleet, the lower the capacity will likely be for that Airport.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 115 of 159 There are four categories of aircraft used for capacity determinations under the FAA criteria. These classifications are based upon the maximum certificated takeoff weight, the number of engines, and wake turbulence classifications. The aircraft indexes and characteristics are shown in the following table, Table 4-10, Aircraft Classifications, and the following figure, Figure 4-10, Cross Section of Aircraft Classifications. TABLE 4-10 AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATIONS AIRCRAFT CLASS MAXIMUM CERTIFICATED TAKEOFF WEIGHT (LBS) NUMBER OF ENGINES WAKE TURBULENCE CLASSIFICATION 1 A AND B UNDER 12,500 SINGLE- /MULTISMALL C 12,500 – 300,000 MULTI- LARGE D Over 300,000 MULTI- HEAVY Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5360-5, Change 2, Airport Capacity and Delay. 1 Wake turbulence classifications as defined by the FAA, Small – Aircraft of 41,000 lbs. maximum certificated takeoff; Large – Aircraft more than 41,000 lbs certificated takeoff weight, up to 255,000 lbs: Heavy – Aircraft capable of takeoff weights of more than 255,000 lbs whether or not they are operating at this weight during a particular phase of flight. These classifications are used to determine the mix index, which is required to calculate the theoretical capacity of an airfield. The mix index is defined as the percent of Class C aircraft plus three (3) times the percent of Class D aircraft, reflected as a percentage (C+3D). The percent of A and B class aircraft do not count towards the calculation of mix index due to the quick dissipation of turbulence produced by this category. Using the FAA formula and based on the approved FAA forecast, the mix index for HOT is expected to increase slightly during the 20-year forecast period based on the expected increase in jet traffic at HOT. The mix index is expected to be approximately 17 in 2017, 19 in 2022, 22 in 2027, 24 in 2032, and 26 in 2037.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 116 of 159 FIGURE 4-10 CROSS SECTION OF AIRCRAFT CLASSIFICATIONS Class A and B – 12,500 lbs. or less (Single-/Multi-Engine) Class C – Large aircraft, 12,500 lbs. to 300,000 lbs. Class D – Heavy aircraft, More than 300,000 lbs. Source: Dr. Antonio Trani, Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech University. AIRFIELD OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Operational characteristics that can affect an airfield’s overall capacity include the percent of aircraft arrivals and the percent of touch-and-go operations.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 117 of 159 PERCENT OF AIRCRAFT ARRIVALS The percent of aircraft arrivals is the ratio of landing operations to the total operations for the airport. This percent is considered due to the fact that aircraft approaching an airport for landing require more runway occupancy time than an aircraft departing the airfield. The FAA methodology used provides for computing airfield capacity with a 40 percent, 50 percent, or 60 percent of arrivals. For the purposes of capacity and delay calculations, the 50 percent arrivals factor was used. PERCENT OF TOUCH-AND-GO OPERATIONS The percent of touch-and-go operations plays a critical role in the determination of airport capacity. Touch-and-go operations are typically associated with flight training activity. It is estimated that the total number of touch-and-go operations at HOT is 5% of total operations. METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS Aircraft operating parameters are dependent upon the weather conditions, such as cloud ceiling height and visibility range. As weather conditions deteriorate, pilots must rely on instruments to define their position both vertically and horizontally. Capacity is lowered during such conditions because the FAA requires aircraft separation increases for safety reasons. Additionally, some airports may have limitations with regards to their instrument approach capability which also impacts capacity during inclement weather. The FAA defines three (3) general weather categories, based upon the ceiling height of clouds above ground level and visibility. Visual Flight Rules (VFR): Cloud ceiling is greater than 1,000’ above ground level (AGL) and the visibility is at least three statute miles; Instrument Flight Rules (IFR): Cloud ceiling is at least 500’ AGL but less than 1,000’ AGL and/or the visibility is at least one statute mile but less than three (3) statute miles; and Poor Visibility and Ceiling (PVC): Cloud ceiling is less than 500’ AGL and/or the visibility is less than one statute mile. According to historic weather data, HOT observes VFR conditions approximately 77.46% of the time, IFR conditions approximately 19.64% of the time, and PVC conditions approximately 2.9% of the time.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 118 of 159 HOURLY CAPACITY OF RUNWAYS Hourly capacity of a runway system measures the maximum number of aircraft operations that can be accommodated by an airport’s runway configuration in one hour. This capacity is calculated by analyzing the appropriate series of graphs and tables for VFR and IFR conditions within FAA (AC) 150/5060-5. From these figures, the hourly capacity is calculated by multiplying the hourly capacity base, the touch-and-go factor, and the exit factor together. The equation for this formula is: Hourly Capacity = C* x T x E where: C* = hourly capacity base T = touch-and-go factor E = exit factor The airport’s calculated hourly capacity can be seen in the following table, Table 4-11, Hourly Capacity. TABLE 4-11 HOURLY CAPACITY YEAR VFR OPERATIONS IFR OPERATIONS WEIGHTED HOURLY CAPACITY (Cw) 2017 98.31 56.0 89.75 2022 94.28 55 86.33 2027 104.89 53.9 94.57 2032 99.32 52.92 89.93 2037 96.53 52.92 87.71 Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5360-5, Change 2, Airport Capacity and Delay. ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME Under the FAA methodology, the most important value that must be computed to evaluate the capacity at an airport is the annual service volume (ASV). ASV represents a measure of the approximate number of total operations that an airport can support annually. Using the FAA’s methodology to estimate ASV, the ratio of annual operations to average daily operations, during the peak month, must first be calculated along with the ratio of average daily operations to average peak hour operations, during the peak month. These values
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 119 of 159 are then multiplied together resulting in a product to be multiplied by the weighted hourly capacity. The equation used to calculate ASV is: Annual Service Volume = Cw x D x H where: Cw = weighted hourly capacity D = ratio of annual operations to average daily operations during the peak month H = ratio of average daily operations to average peak hour operations during the peak month The Airport’s ASV, as calculated based on the method above, can be seen in the following table, Table 4-12, Annual Service Volume (ASV). Table 4-12 Annual Service Volume (ASV) YEAR FORECASTED ANNUAL OPERATIONS FORECASTED PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS COMPUTED ASV FORECASTED OPERATIONS % OF ASV (% CAPACITY) 2017 40,995 189 194,673 21.1% 2022 44,790 203 190,487 23.5% 2027 48,239 217 210,237 22.9% 2032 51,503 232 199,647 25.8% 2037 54,878 247 194,876 28.2% Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5360-5, Change 2, Airport Capacity and Delay. 1 Baseline It should be noted that the ASV calculations show an increase in airfield capacity between 2022 and 2027. This is due to the changing mix index. In the FAA’s capacity calculation methodology, when the mix index surpasses 20 the optimal runway exit range changes to 3,000 to 5,500 ft. from the previous range of 2,000 to 4,000 ft. used when the mix index is below 20. As previously mentioned, HOT has more runway exits in the 3,000 to 5,500 ft. range. This increase in the number of runway exits in the optimal range results in a decrease in Runway Occupancy Time (ROT) which results in a higher ASV.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 120 of 159 AIRCRAFT DELAY HOT currently has excess capacity and is forecasted to continue to have excess capacity during the forecast period. Consequently, the average delay per aircraft is estimated to be less than 1 minute. The total annual delay is also estimated to be negligible. Based on this analysis it is estimated that most aircraft delays will be due to circumstances outside the design capacity of HOT’s airfield. DELAY AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY Based on the results of this analysis it is not expected that airfield delay and capacity will be an alternative consideration during the forecast period. LANDSIDE/ROADWAY FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Landside facilities include the airport access roads, curbside areas and parking facilities that accommodate passenger movement, vehicle parking and ground transportation services such as car rental, shuttle, cab and/or Transportation Network Companies (TNCs). Landside facilities at HOT are displayed in Figure 4-11, Landside Facilities Map. TNCs are defined as companies that provide prearranged transportation services using an online-enabled application or platform to connect passengers with drivers using their personal, non-commercial vehicles. Two of the biggest TNC companies in operation today are Uber and Lyft. For this analysis, it was assumed that there will not be a significant change in the relative availability, convenience, or price of the various landside modes or facilities over the planning period.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 121 of 159 FIGURE 4-11, LANDSIDE FACILITIES MAP. Source: Garver, 2018. ROADWAY ACCESS The terminal area is accessed from US Highway 70 via the terminal loop road that is two way until it enters the loop and then remains one way around the parking lot and in front of the terminal until it finishes the loop. The volume of traffic on the terminal access loop road will not exceed capacity of the roadway during the forecast period, and the lack of intersections with stop conditions, allows for free flow and reduces backups during periods of passenger pickup and drop offs. WAYFINDING Before traffic approaches the terminal there are two decision points. One small road branches off the two-lane portion of the terminal access road and provides access to two private hangars and their parking areas. Another hangar parking area is accessed off the one way portion of the terminal access loop just before the terminal curb. After the terminal curb area, another small access road branches off the one-way portion of the terminal access loop and provides access to the rental car maintenance buildings, and to the general aviation area of the airfield. It is recommended that wayfinding signs along the terminal area access road be considered to more closely control traffic and access to nonpublic areas of the airport property.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 122 of 159 CURB AND PARKING Arrivals and departures both access the curb directly in front of the terminal building, and there is 250 feet of curb length directly in front of the terminal building available for passenger pick up and drop off. Additionally, on the other side of the terminal loop road is another 250 feet of curb length available that can be used for picking up and dropping off passengers. A through lane is maintained between the curb drop off lanes. During peak passenger flow times, if each passenger is picked up or dropped off at the same time in different passenger vehicles, the maximum curb length required is 160 feet. If each passenger is dropped off at the same time from a different shuttle, the required curb length is 240 feet. The amount of curb length available at the terminal is sufficient for the forecast period. The parking lot is accessed once traffic has passed the terminal curb. Two hundred thirtysix parking spaces, and 5 ADA spaces are available in the main parking lot and are available for terminal patron, employee, and rental car parking. Another parking area is accessed just before the terminal curb area and provides 15 spaces for hangar parking and 19 employee spaces on the back side of the terminal building. In the general aviation/corporate aviation area, there are 126 parking spaces available to serve the general aviation and corporate hangars in that area. The main terminal parking lot has not been observed to be full in recent history and is the number of spaces is sufficient to accommodate the traffic during the forecast period. Alternatives for access control and parking revenue will be considered. TERMINAL FACILITY REQUIREMENTS The terminal functions at an airport include a ground access interface, processing passengers and bags, cargo handling, airport administration, operations, and maintenance. The functional mission of the terminal facility at HOT is to provide essential air service to the community and passenger access to the domestic airline system. As such, the HOT terminal is an Origin and Destination (O&D) airport accommodating one small regional airline that provides daily scheduled service to the DFW airport where passengers can access the larger passenger airline system. O&D airports provide both landside functions (ticketing, security screening, baggage handling) and airside functions (concourse, holdrooms/gates) because all passengers whether emplaning or deplaning pass through both sectors of the terminal. The airport terminal is accessed from the airside by a regional essential air service carrier utilizing eight seat, propeller aircraft that power in and out of the ramp parking position. The aircraft are accessed by passengers from the ramp and the terminal is accessed at the ramp level. No aircraft gates or hard stands are required for the emplaning or deplaning of passengers, nor are expected to be required throughout the forecast period.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 123 of 159 PEAK PERIOD TRAFFIC HOT is served by one small regional carrier under the essential air service provision. The airline offers service three times per day, six days per week, to DFW. Because there is only the possibility of one commercial flight departing or arriving at a time, the peak characteristic is a full passenger load of 8 passengers to be processed at a time. TSA and baggage screening are not required for scheduled commercial service aircraft serving fewer than 9 passengers. If service is expanded at HOT over the planning horizon, it anticipated that it will add flights instead of to use larger aircraft according to the operator’s projections. Passenger processing, consequently, consists of ticketing, check-in, and manual baggage handling. According to the airport and airline staff, the space currently designated for these activities in the terminal is adequate to support these functions throughout the forecast period. PUBLIC SPACES/WAYFINDING/CONCESSIONS The passenger holdroom area in the terminal currently provides seating for 40 people. The peak passenger load of 8 is well below the capacity of the holdroom and the holdroom is large enough to accommodate both passengers and meeter/greeter traffic throughout the forecast period. Because of the open layout of the passenger terminal interior, wayfinding within the terminal is intuitive and no deficiencies have been identified. Concessions offered within the terminal building include rental cars and vending machines. No additional space is required for these activities during the forecast period. GENERAL AVIATION FACILITY REQUIREMENTS General Aviation facilities are an important component of an airport. Consequently, as part of the master planning process it is important to analyze the existing general aviation facilities in light of the established forecast to identify where improvements are necessary. GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL/FBO FACILITIES General aviation terminal/Fixed Base Operator (FBO) facilities and vehicle parking facilities play an important role in an airport’s efforts to serve the general aviation and air taxi community.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 124 of 159 GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL/FBO BUILDING Sufficient general aviation terminal/FBO facilities are vital to support the propagation of general aviation activity at an airport. In establishing future plans for the development of general aviation terminal/FBO facilities some key considerations are: Planned development should allow for incremental linear expansion of facilities and services in a modular fashion along an established flight line; Major design considerations involve minimizing earthwork/grading, avoiding floodprone areas and integrating existing paved areas to reduce pavement (taxilane) costs; Future terminal expansion should allow sufficient maneuverability and accessibility for appropriate types (mix) of general aviation aircraft within secured access areas; and, Future terminal area development should enhance safety, visibility, and be aesthetically pleasing. Currently, the City of Hot Springs owns and operates the FBO at HOT. The FBO terminal facility is co-located in the same building with the passenger terminal facility. In total, the FBO portion of the facility is approximately 2,800 sq. ft. The facility is in good condition and there are no existing operational or infrastructure related concerns. The formula contained in the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 113: Guidebook on General Aviation Facility Planning was used to evaluate whether the existing terminal facility will be sufficient to meet forecasted demand. The formula states that the demand for general aviation terminal space is a function of an airport’s forecasted peak hour air taxi, general aviation, and military operations multiplied by a per square footage allotment per person and the average number of pilots/passengers per aircraft. According to ACRP Report 113 the average number of pilots/passengers per aircraft is typically 2.5. For the square footage allotment per person, ACRP Report 113 recommends between 100 sq. ft. and 150 sq. ft. For these calculations 100 square feet per person was used because passenger dwelling time in the FBO terminal is limited. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 4-13.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 125 of 159 TABLE 4-13 GA/FBO TERMINAL BUILDING FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FACILITY 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 FORMULA FACTORS - PEAK HOUR OPERATIONS 30 32 35 37 40 - PEAK HOUR MULTIPLIER 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 - SQ. FT. PER PERSON 100 100 100 100 100 TOTAL FBO/TERMINAL SQ. FT. REQUIREMENT 7,550 8,100 8,700 9,300 9,900 CURRENT FBO/TERMINAL SQ. FT. 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 SURPLUS/DEFICIENCY (SQ.FT.) -4,750 -5,300 -5,900 -6,500 -7,100 Source: Garver, 2018. Based on these calculations, additional FBO terminal space will be needed in the future if itinerant operations continue to increase as described in the forecast chapter. GENERAL AVIATION HANGAR FACILITIES Future hangar areas should achieve a balance between maintaining an unobstructed expansion area, minimizing pavement development, and allowing convenient airside and landside access. For planning purposes, hangars should accommodate at least 95 percent of all based general aviation aircraft as. Typically, single-engine piston aircraft demand 1,200 square feet, twin-propeller aircraft require 1,200 to 3,000 square feet, business turboprop/jet aircraft require approximately 3,000 to 5,000 square feet, and helicopters typically require approximately 1,500 square feet. General hangar design considerations include the following: Construction of aircraft hangars should be beyond an established building restriction line (BRL) surrounding the runway and taxiway areas, the runway OFZ, runway and taxiway OFAs, and remain clear of the FAR Part 77 Surfaces and Threshold Siting Surfaces; Maintaining the minimum recommended clearance between T-hangars of 79 feet for one-way traffic, and 143 feet for two-way traffic. Taxilanes supporting T-hangars should be no less than 25 feet wide. Individual paved approaches to each hangar stall are typically less costly, but not preferred to paving the entire T-hangar access/ramp area; Construction of additional hangar space to accommodate 95 percent of the current based aircraft, hangar waiting list, and forecast need;
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 126 of 159 Adequate drainage with minimal slope differential between the hangar door and taxilane. A hard-surfaced hangar floor is recommended, with less than one percent downward slope to the taxilane/ramp; and, Segregate hangar development based on the hangar type and function. From a planning standpoint, hangars should be centralized in terms of auto access, and located along the established flight line to minimize costs associated with access, drainage, utilities and auto parking expansion. Table 4-14 provides an estimate of the hangar space needed to accommodate future demand. TABLE 4-14 HANGAR FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FACILITY 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 BASED AIRCRAFT - SINGLEENGINELIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT 73 81 86 89 93 ESTIMATED HANGAR SPACEPER AIRCRAFT 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 HANGAR SPACE REQUIRED (SQ. FT.) 91,250 101,250 107,500 111,250 116,250 BASED AIRCRAFT - MULTI-ENGINE 14 14 15 15 15 ESTIMATED HANGAR SPACEPER AIRCRAFT 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 HANGAR SPACE REQUIRED (SQ. FT.) 42,000 42,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 BASED AIRCRAFT - HELICOPTERS 2 3 3 3 4 ESTIMATED HANGAR SPACEPER AIRCRAFT 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 HANGAR SPACE REQUIRED (SQ. FT.) 3,000 4,500 4,500 4,500 6,000 BASED AIRCRAFT - JET 9 10 11 12 12 ESTIMATED HANGAR SPACEPER AIRCRAFT 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 HANGAR SPACE REQUIRED (SQ. FT.) 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 60,000 ANNUAL ITINERANT AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS 33,517 36,619 39,439 42,108 44,867 MAINTENANCE/TRANSIENT HANGAR ARED DEMAND (SQ. FT.) 16,759 18,310 19,720 21,054 22,434 LOSS OFHANGAR SPACEFOR AIRCRAFT PARKING DUE TO LESS THAN OPTIMAL USE 29,701 32,409 34,758 36,271 37,453 TOTAL HANGAR SPACEREQUIRED (SQ. FT.) 227,710 248,468 266,477 278,075 287,136 TOTAL CURRENT HANGAR SPACE(SQ. FT.) 253,380 253,380 253,380 253,380 253,380 SURPLUS/DEFICIENCY(SQ. FT.) 25,670 4,912 -13,097 -24,695 -33,756 Source: Garver, 2017
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 127 of 159 Notes: An average of 1,250 sq. ft. per aircraft was utilized for single-engine/light sport aircraft as it is the average size of an individual T-hangar. An average of 3,000 sq. ft. per aircraft was utilized for the size of turboprop/multiengine aircraft (this is approximately the size of a King Air 350). An average of 1,500 sq. ft. per helicopter was utilized for based helicopter hangar demand calculations. An average of 5,000 sq. ft. per aircraft was utilized for the size of jet aircraft (this is approximately the size of a Citation X). A factor of .5 per operation was utilized for the calculations related to itinerant/maintenance hangar area demand. To account for lost box hangar space due to a tenant’s exclusive use of a facility/building in office space, a less than optimal use factor of 15% has been added to hangar space demand. HOT currently has 73 based single engine piston aircraft which occupy the majority of the T-hangar facilities at the airport. Additionally, some of the existing T-hangars at HOT are large enough to accommodate small twin-engine aircraft and are used for this purpose. Based on the analysis, HOT will likely need to add T-hangars in the future to accommodate the increase in single engine piston aircraft. This increase in demand is expected as HOT currently has a hangar waiting list and most of the individuals on the waiting list are seeking T-hangars or aircraft storage space for small single engine aircraft. As the number of larger based aircraft (e.g. multi-engine, turboprops, helicopters, jets) continues to grow additional box hangar storage capacity will be needed. Current interest from prospective based aircraft owners includes request for both common area box hangar storage as well as private corporate hangar. GENERAL AVIATION RAMP/APRON FACILITIES Aircraft ramp/apron areas are provided for aircraft maneuvering and parking. Typically, aprons are utilized for aircraft parking, having a blend of based aircraft utilizing the apron as a permanent parking location and itinerant aircraft that are using the apron as a temporary parking location. To begin the analysis, a weighted average of the apron square footage needed to park an aircraft was calculated. This weighted average was calculated based on the forecasted aircraft operations fleet mix at HOT. The weighted average also accounts for all required wingtip/nose/tail clearances on all sides of the aircraft and equivalent taxilane in front of the aircraft to allow aircraft of a similar size to pass by.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 128 of 159 Table 4-15 shows the weighted average apron space requirement per aircraft calculation for 2017 , the weighted averages 2017, 2022, 2027, 2032, and 2037 are shown in Table 4-16. TABLE 4-15 AIRCRAFT APRON SPACE – WEIGHTED AVERAGE REQUIREMENT - 2017 ADG AVERAGE LENGTH(FT) AVERAGE WINGSPAN (FT) ADDITIONAL CLEARANCE(FT) TOFA CLEARANCE (FT) AVERAGE PARKING AREA REQUIRED (FT2 ) FLEET MIX WEIGHTED AVERAGE PARKINGAREA (FT2 ) I 26 35 7.50 79 6,000 82.47% 4,948 II 55 60 9.00 115 14,664 16.92% 2,481 HELICOPTER 35 30 12.00 0 3,186 0.61% 19 WEIGHTED AVERAGE: 7,449 Source: Garver, 2017 Note: These calculations take into account the TOFA required for another aircraft to pass by the parked aircraft. The average parking area required was calculated by multiplying the average aircraft length plus 2 times the additional clearance margin by the average aircraft wingspan plus 2 times the additional clearance margin and then adding that number to the TOFA plus the aircraft’s average wingspan plus 2 times the additional clearance margin. TABLE 4-16 AIRCRAFT APRON SPACE –WEIGHTED AVERAGE REQUIREMENT Source: Garver, 2017 Based on these calculations and the HOT peaking characteristics described in the Forecast Chapter, Table 4-17 shows the estimated amount of apron space that will be required at HOT during the forecast period. WEIGHTED AVERAGEPARKING YEAR AREA (FT2 ) PER AIRCRAFT 7,449 7,745 7,936 8,088 2037 8,268 2032 2027 2022 2017
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 129 of 159 TABLE 4-17 AIRCRAFT APRON SPACE – FACILITY REQUIREMENT CALCULATIONS YEAR PEAK MONTH AVERAGEDAY (PMAD) ARRIVALS FORECASTED %OF INTINERANT OPERATIONS ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OFINTINERANT OPS ON APRON AT SAME TIME WEIGHTED AVERAGE AIRCRAFT PARKING AREA (FT2 ) ESTIMATED PARKING APRON REQUIRED AIRCRAFT CIRCULATION FACTOR TOTAL APRON AREA REQUIRED (FT2 ) CURRENT APRON AREA (FT2 ) SURPLUS/ DEFICIENCY BASED ON CURRENT APRON SIZE (FT2 ) 2017 95 80.00% 70.00% 7,449 394,201 118,260 512,461 435,000 -77,461 2022 102 80.00% 70.00% 7,745 440,226 132,068 572,294 435,000 -137,294 2027 109 80.00% 70.00% 7,936 482,191 144,657 626,849 435,000 -191,849 2032 116 80.00% 70.00% 8,088 525,396 157,619 683,015 435,000 -248,015 2037 124 80.00% 70.00% 8,268 571,815 171,544 743,359 435,000 -308,359 Source: Garver, 2017 Note: An assumption was made that no more than 70% of the total number of estimated itinerant operations during the PMAD would be on the ramp at the same time. The estimated parking apron required was calculated by multiplying the PMAD for arrivals by the forecasted % of itinerant operations, then multiplying that result by the estimated percentage of itinerant OPS on the apron at the same time, and then multiplying that result by the weighted average aircraft parking area. A factor of .3 was added to the apron space calculation to account for general aircraft circulation and aircraft movement. Based on the results of this analysis, HOT requires additional ramp space in the near term to accommodate existing demand. Additional ramp space is needed to accommodate future increases in air traffic as well. CORPORATE FACILITIES Existing HOT tenants have stated that they are interested in potentially developing additional facilities at the airport. Additionally, with the growth of the local economy there is a potential for new tenants to establish corporate/business flight operations at the airport. Consequently, space for the development of additional corporate hangar facilities will be considered in the alternatives development process. GENERAL AVIATION FUEL STORAGE FACILITIES Fuel storage requirements are based on the forecast of annual operations, aircraft utilization, average fuel consumption rates, and the forecast mix of aircraft anticipated at HOT. On average, the typical single-engine airplane consumes 12.0 gallons of fuel per hour and flies approximately 100 nautical miles (1.0 to 1.5 hours) per flight. Turbine aircraft generally will fly greater distances averaging 300 nautical miles and approximately 1.5 – 2.0 hours. Market conditions will determine the ultimate need for fuel tanks and their size. The following guidelines should be implemented when planning future airport fuel facilities:
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 130 of 159 Aircraft fueling facilities should remain open continually (24-hour access), remain visible and be within close proximity to the terminal building or FBO to enhance security and convenience; Fuel storage capacity should be sufficient for average peak-hour month activity; Fueling systems should permit adequate wing-tip clearance to other structures, designated aircraft parking areas (tie-downs), maneuvering areas, and OFAs associated with taxilane and taxiway centerlines; Locating the fuel facilities beyond the RSA and BRL; Equipping all fuel storage tanks with monitors to meet current state and federal environmental regulations, and be sited in accordance with local fire codes; Have a dedicated fuel truck for Jet-A delivery to minimize the liability associated with towing and maneuvering expensive aircraft up to and in the vicinity of fueling facilities; and, Maintaining adequate truck transport access to the fuel storage tanks for fuel delivery. Currently, HOT has two 12,000-gallon Jet A fuel storage tanks and one 10,000-gallon 100LL storage tank. Additionally, HOT also has a 2,500-gallon self-service 100LL tank on site. Based on an analysis of the current and future fleet mix at HOT, it is estimated that HOT could see demand for Jet A reach over 600,000 gallons annually by the end of the forecast period. Based on the size of an average fuel tanker truck (approx. 8,000 gallons), HOT would require approximately 76 loads of fuel annually or 1.46 loads per week. It is typically recommended that airports carry enough fuel in storage to support 3 to 4 days of operations without needing to be re-supplied in case of fuel shortages or interruptions in fuel delivery. Based on the fuel storage capacity of the existing storage tanks as well as the additional fuel contained in the mobile fuel trucks, HOT’s existing fuel farm should have the capacity to meet forecasted demand while supplying sufficient reserves. The demand for 100LL fuel at the airport is not expected to increase significantly during the forecast period. Consequently, it is expected that the current 100LL storage tanks will be sufficient. AIR CARGO/DRONE FACILITIES There is currently no air cargo or drone activity at the airport however possible locations to accommodate future activity should be considered in the land use alternatives.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 131 of 159 SUPPORT FACILITIES HOT has a number of support facilities that need to be considered in the facility requirements analysis. These facilities include the ARFF Station, utilities, the airport maintenance facility, and rental car service center. ARFF STATION The ARFF station at HOT is located on off the airport entrance road and houses both airport and community firefighting operations. The current station is staffed and maintained by the City of Hot Springs and is capable of meeting both the requirements of the airport certification manual and the off-airport community needs for the forecast period. UTILITIES City owned and maintained water and gravity sewer lines are available off the main service lines along Airport Road. The type and capacity are sufficient for any aeronautical or nonaeronautical development in the terminal area and along Runway 5/23 over the forecast period. Near the end of Runway 31 there are both city owned water and gravity sewer lines available for future development in the Runway 31 area. AIRPORT MAINTENANCE FACILITY Most airport maintenance operations function out of Hangar A-12 on the terminal ramp. HOT has a variety of GSE and maintenance equipment that is stored either on the terminal apron or in the hangar. Alternative locations for future maintenance operations will be considered. RENTAL CAR SERVICE CENTER Both rental car concession companies operate and maintain a service center at HOT. The maintenance buildings are located on the general aviation access road. Due to the limited scope and volume of maintenance activities being conducted in each location, it is suggested that alternatives be considered to consolidate maintenance activities for all rental car concessions into one joint use facility in order to eliminate the need for duplicate facilities and open up additional development areas near the terminal. FUTURE AERONAUTICAL/NON-AERONAUTICAL DEVELOPMENT Future new aeronautical and non-aeronautical developments at HOT will play a major role in the growth and development of HOT during the forecast period. As discussed in the Inventory Chapter, HOT has a number of areas that are undeveloped or well-suited for redevelopment. These areas are shown below in Figure 4-12 and are color coded for their development potential.
Facility Requirements July 2022 Page 132 of 159 FIGURE 4-12 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS Source: Garver, 2017 The type(s) of development(s) that should be considered in each of these areas will be discussed in the Alternatives Chapter. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY Based on the analysis described in this chapter, the following development objectives have been developed for HOT to guide the alternatives development process: Consider Runway Length Alternatives. Address RSA, ROFA, and RPZ deficiencies. Instrument Approach Implementation for Runway 23. Address Line of Site. Standardize Taxiway Configurations. Update Airfield Lighting and Signage. Consider alternatives for Roadway access control, wayfinding, and parking revenue generation. Consider alternatives for future apron and hangar development. Consider alternatives for future aeronautical and non-aeronautical development and land uses.
Alternatives July 2022 Page 133 of 159 CHAPTER 5: AIRPORT ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the various airfield and terminal/landside area development options that were created based on the needs defined in the Facility Requirements Chapter. This chapter also discusses the evaluation process used to select the preferred development alternative for each area, reviews the results of the evaluation process, and provides an overview of the anticipated environmental impacts of the preferred development alternative. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The development of the various alternatives described in this chapter were created by reviewing the facility requirements defined in Chapter 4 and brainstorming numerous development options that could potentially satisfy those requirements. Those development alternatives were then consolidated into four airfield development alternatives that went through the formal evaluation process described herein to select the preferred alternative. Airside facilities are those that are used for supporting the active movement and circulation of aircraft which includes runways, taxiways, and approach facilities and equipment. Terminal/Landside are facilities include the terminal building, fuel storage/delivery systems, aircraft parking aprons, additional aircraft hangars, automobile access and parking, and utility/infrastructure. EVALUATION OVERVIEW As part of the formal evaluation process, the impact each alternative had in the following areas was considered: The ability to satisfy the established facility requirements determined in the analysis and aviation demand. Compatibility with Existing Airport Infrastructure (e.g. existing ramps, taxiways, runways, etc.) Alignment with SWOT Analysis conducted at the beginning of the master planning process Impact to future expansion opportunities; (landside/terminal only) Conformance with FAA design standards Airspace impacts Constructability/Costs Impact to airport revenue generation
Alternatives July 2022 Page 134 of 159 These evaluation criteria will be discussed more in-depth later in this chapter as well as their application to each alternative. Because all airport functions relate to and revolve around the runway/taxiway layout, airside development alternatives are evaluated before terminal/landside development alternatives. When terminal/landside development alternatives are evaluated their compatibility with the preferred airside development alternative is considered. AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES The existing Runway Design Code (RDC) for HOT is C-II-2400 and the critical aircraft for HOT is expected to be a B-II in the short term and growing to a C-II over the length of the planning horizon. Consequently, various components of the current airside facilities have been evaluated for their ability to meet both B-II and ultimately C-II design standards. The deficiencies identified in the facility requirement analysis become the development objectives for HOT for the 20-year planning horizon. Each of these development objectives are discussed below: Expand Runway 5/23 to 7,000 feet and 7,200 feet Consider the feasibility of adding an Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) to Runway 23 Address deficiencies in the RSA, ROFA and OFZ to meet the current FAA design standards Maintain C-II RSA standards to support existing C-II operations and anticipated future growth of C-II operations Relocate runway hold position markings on Runway 13/31 Consider future relocation for building placement outside of the BRL Address obstructions on the runway intersection areas Improve taxiway fillet dimensions to current TDG-based standards Address the taxiway layout and configuration issues at Taxiway F Correct hold position location of taxiway markings for Runway 13-31 Each of these objectives were discussed in detail in the Facility Requirements Chapter.
Alternatives July 2022 Page 135 of 159 With these objectives identified the following alternatives were developed: Airfield Alternative #1 o Runways Property Acquisition in the Runway 23 RPZ Includes 605’ extension to Runway 23 (Ultimate RW 5-23 = 7,200’ x 150’) Continues to use declared distances for Runway 23 Mitigates all RPZ issues except for Runway 5 and Runway 13 o Taxiways Eliminates current taxiway hot spot and Line of Site issue at Runway 23 hold short position Standardized runway/taxiway intersections for both runways Adds full parallel taxiway to south side of Runway 5-23 to minimize traffic crossing Runway 5-23. o Other Redevelops terminal area for maximum revenue per acre Moves VOR off airport property (opens 50 acres for development) Airside Alternative #1 is shown in Figure 5-1. Airfield Alternative #2 o Runways Mitigates all RPZ issues with land acquisition and runway length adjustments Reduces Runway 5-23 to 5,655’ x 100’ and Runway 13-31 to 4,010’ x 75’ Standard parallel taxiway offset allows taxiway to be used as an alternative landing strip o Taxiways Creates full length parallel taxiway for Runway 5-23 at standard 400’ offset, with no non-standard intersections o Other Redevelops terminal area for maximum revenue per acre Airside Alternative #2 is shown in Figure 5-2.
Alternatives July 2022 Page 136 of 159 Airfield Alternative #3 o Runways Property acquisition in the Runway 23 RPZ Includes 605’ extension to Runway 23 (Ultimate RW 5-23 = 7,200’ x 150’) Closes Runway 13-31 to maximize aeronautical development area Eliminates crosswind runway coverage o Taxiways Includes full-length parallel taxiway for Runway 5-23 at 400’ offset, with no non-standard intersections Includes additional partial parallel taxiway to Runway 5-23 at 400’ offset on the south side of the runway. o Other Expands terminal apron parking area Airside Alternative #3 is shown in Figure 5-3. Airfield Alternative #4 o Runways No change to runways (Ultimate RW 5-23 = 6,595’ x 150’) Mitigates Runway 5 RSA deficiency by displacing threshold 250’ and using declared distances Runway 23 end remains the same Ultimate Runway 13-31 – 4,098 x 100’ o Taxiways No elimination of Line of Site at RW 23 hold short issue or hot spot o Other Includes redevelopment of terminal area for maximum revenue per acre Airside Alternative #4 is shown in Figure 5-4.
Alternatives July 2022 FIGUR AIRSIDE ALTE HOT SPRINGS M Source: Garver, 2022
Page 137 of 159 RE 5-1 ERNATIVE #1 MEMORIAL FIELD
Alternatives July 2022 FIGUR AIRSIDE ALTE HOT SPRINGS M Source: Garver, 2018
Page 138 of 159 RE 5-2 ERNATIVE #2 MEMORIAL FIELD
Alternatives July 2022 FIGUR AIRSIDE ALTE HOT SPRINGS M Source: Garver, 2018
Page 139 of 159 RE 5-3 ERNATIVE #3 MEMORIAL FIELD
Alternatives July 2022 FIGUR AIRSIDE ALTE HOT SPRINGS M Source: Garver, 2018
Page 140 of 159 RE 5-4 ERNATIVE #4 MEMORIAL FIELD
Alternatives July 2022 Page 141 of 159 AIRFIELD ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION One of the tasks of a master plan is to analyze the alternatives to determine which alternative provides a realistic and feasible plan that will allow the airport to meet future demand in a safe and efficient manner. To facilitate this analysis, evaluation criteria were established, and an evaluation matrix was developed showing how each airside alternative compared based on the evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria are discussed below. The following criteria are rated on a High, Moderate, or Low level of impact scale: Ability to Satisfy the Established Facility Requirements and Meet Aviation Demand– Will the proposed alternative be able to accommodate the types and volumes of traffic expected to use the airport over the planning horizon? Preferably, the proposed alternative should be scalable to allow for incremental growth as aeronautical demand increases. Conformance to FAA Design Standards -Will the alternative satisfy most or all of the dimensional and layout requirements necessary to meet FAA aviation design standard. Compatibility with Existing Airport Infrastructure – How much of an impact will the proposed airside alternative have on existing airport infrastructure ((e.g. existing ramps, taxiways, runways, etc.)? Ideally, alternatives should make good use of the existing airport infrastructure. Environmental Impacts – What impacts will the proposed alternative have on the environment? This includes water, soil, wildlife, noise, and cultural environmental factors as well as any other applicable to the airport. The environmental process when using Federal funds is a component for major CIP projects. The environmental process will begin in the early stages of project development and the outcome will be a key factor in how the project develops. When increasing the size of an airport to accommodate larger aircraft, noise sensitive areas need to be evaluated. Soil conditions for construction will need to be suited for airport uses. Floodplains and wetlands need to be avoided if possible. Airport Operational Impacts – How much will the proposed development alternative impact operations and management of the airport. Impacts to aircraft traffic flow and safety for pilots will be considered as well as impacts to airport maintenance and service operations by airport staff from changes to airfield facilities layouts. Increases Airport Revenue Generation/Development Opportunities – Does the proposed alternative align with the SWOT analysis emphasis on future revenue generation opportunities? Do the layouts allow for additional development that will allow the airport to benefit from increase fee or lease collections? Constructability/Cost – What will the cost be to construct the proposed airside alternative and are there any impediments/barriers that would prevent its construction? Constructability is a key factor when major expansion is expected. If there are roadblocks to development the cost usually increases. The terrain changes on and near the site will be a factor to constructability. This category was evaluated by information gathered from
Alternatives July 2022 Page 142 of 159 site visits, review of existing available data, and aerial photographs. Ideally, the cost to construct the facility should be reasonable and the barriers to construction should be minimal. AIRSIDE EVALUATION RESULTS Based on evaluation criteria discussed above, the following matrix was developed showing the proposed rating of each alternative. TABLE 5-1 AIRSIDE EVALUATION HOT SPRINGS MEMORIAL FIELD Airfield Alternatives Evaluation Criteria 1 2 3 4 Comments Ability to Satisfy the Established Facility Requirements #1 meets both current and future facility requirements. #2 severely constrains LDA. #3 eliminates cross wind coverage. No Future Runway Extension in #4 - limiting future aircraft served. Conformance with FAA Design Standards RW 5 RPZ contains incompatible land uses in # 1, 3, 4. #4 has non-standard TW offset, non-perpendicular TW intersections and doesn't correct Hot Spot. Environmental Impacts RW 23 extension requires land acquisition, residential relocations, and extends noise contours in #s 1, 2, 3. Airport Operational Impacts Loss of crosswind RW in # 3 limits operations and aircraft served in weather conditions. Loss of runway length in # 2 & 3 limit the aircraft that can use the airport. #4 can serve existing traffic, but can't accommodate projected growth in critical aircraft Increases Airport Revenue Generation/Development Relocation of VOR creates additional hangar development area in #1. Closure of 13-31 in #3 allows accommodation of large development opportunities. Development Cost #1 VOR relocation costs unknown #2 - new approach development and lighting associated with new runway end locations #3 has high taxiway and apron pavement costs - Low Impact or Meets Requirements - Moderate Impact or Fails to Meet Some Requirements - High Impact or Fails to Meet Most Requirements EVALUATION COMMENTARY FOR ALTERNATIVE #1 Development Alternative #1 would allow the airport to meet both current and future facility requirements. This alternative would maximize the runway length with the use of declared distances. A runway extension to Runway 23 would allow the threshold to be moved and allow for a correction of the line of site issue and hot spot currently occurring at the hold short positions. The environmental impact associated with Alternative #1 includes acquisition of property and residential relocations for the runway extension that might include an increase of the size of the noise contours off the ends of the runway. Airport operations would be improved in this alternative by improving traffic flow and aircraft safety at the Runway 23 end of the airfield. The relocation of the VOR in Alternative #1 allows for the biggest increase of development area for aeronautical use and revenue generation. However, the development cost for Alternative #1 is significant, because it requires the most construction of any alternative and the cost of relocating the VOR is unknown but is assumed to be high. Overall, Alternative #1 meets the most of the overall development objectives with the least amount of negative impacts to airport operations and service of customers and the cost is not unreasonable as long as AIP funding is available. EVALUATION COMMENTARY FOR ALTERNATIVE #2 The approach to development of Alternative #2 is to examine the impacts of mitigating all RPZ issues by moving the runway ends. The Runway 5 threshold is moved 1,885’ to include the entire RPZ within the airport property limits. Runway 13 is displaced 847’ and the Runway 31 threshold is displaced 103’. Runway 23 is extended 605’ and the hot spot and line of sight issues at that end are corrected. This alternative meets design standards for RPZ and dimensional criteria, but it does not allow the airport to meet the anticipated aviation demand for a runway longer than
Alternatives July 2022 Page 143 of 159 5,655’. Declared distances can be used to expand the operational capacity of the runway in Alternative #2, but there is also an unnecessarily high pavement maintenance cost associated with maintaining over 7,000 feet of pavement that only provides 5,666’ of landing distance available. The environmental impacts of Alternative #2 are similar to Alternative #1 including land acquisition, residential relocation and possible noise impacts. The additional costs associated with Alternative #2 include additional approach development and lighting modification costs associated with moving the ILS on Runway 5. Of the alternatives investigated, this alternative has the lowest score among the evaluation criteria. EVALUATION COMMENTARY FOR ALTERNATIVE #3 Alternative #3 investigates the impacts of closing the crosswind runway and redeveloping the area for aeronautical use. The negative impact of closing the runway is that crosswind runway coverage would no longer be provided, and many aircraft use the crosswind runway annually. The positive impact of closing the runway is that the property on the east side of the airport is then available for redevelopment for aeronautical use and would generate revenue for the airport. The runway extension for 23 is constructed in Alternative #3 and the hot spot and line of site issues are consequently corrected. Similarly, the environmental impacts include the property acquisition, residential relocation and possible noise impacts associated with the Runway 23 extension. Alternative #3 also includes development of parallel taxiways to each runway on the east side of the airfield and would improve operational safety, but also increases both the construction and maintenance costs of the extra pavement. Although this alternative is attractive for the amount of revenue generating area that is featured, it is not considered justified because of the loss of airfield operational facilities that are highly utilized by airport operators. EVALUATION COMMENTARY FOR ALTERNATIVE #4 Alternative #4 is the “Do Nothing” alternative as it does not make significant changes to either RPZs or runway ends. This option has the least amount of environmental impact and costs the least to implement, but it doesn’t meet FAA design standards or allow the airport to accommodate the forecasted aviation activity adequately. The hot spot and line of sight issue at the hold short position for Runway 23 jeopardize safety and negatively impacts airport operations in that area. Alternative #4 allows the airport to accommodate existing traffic but does not allow for the growth in the critical aircraft that is expected. Alternative #4 is an acceptable interim alternative until aviation demand triggers implementation of the ultimate preferred alternative. PREFERRED AIRSIDE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE After consideration of the alternatives and recommendation by the planners and engineers, the advisory committee and airport staff determined that Alternative #1 best supports the overall development objectives and long-term success of the airport overall with the least amount of negative impacts or costs. The advisory committee supports the airport staff pursuing development of Alternative #1 as the preferred alternative for ultimate airport development.
Implementation July 2022 Page 145 of 159 CHAPTER 6: IMPLEMENTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and phase implementation plan establishes an orderly series of improvements intended to support the growth and development of HOT in alignment with the preferred development concept outlined in the Alternatives chapter. Many of the recommended improvements address safety and standardization of airfield facilities. Other projects will be focused on maintenance and rehabilitation and will be driven by condition of the affected facility. For facility development or expansion projects, it is important to note that market demand, instead of timing will be the driver for initiating expansion of facilities. Changes in types of activity or increases in activity levels or demand should be reviewed annually by the City of Hot Springs, FAA, and the Airport Management Team to determine if any of the changes should trigger the next steps of development. This exercise will aid the City of Hot Springs and FAA in building and updating the rolling 3-year Airport Improvement Program for HOT based on aviation demand. In developing HOT’s CIP and phased implementation plan, the following guidelines have been followed: The scheduling of projects is prioritized to permit improvements in a coordinated approach. The phasing and priority of each project has been determined with respect to airport safety, demand, compatibility with other airport projects, and FAA programming schedules Overall, the CIP has been structured to provide the flexibility to meet short and long-range goals. Therefore, individual projects should not be considered as a single improvement, but as part of a project series that arrives at the ultimate concept The implementation plan does not represent an obligation of local funds, nor does it require funding without justification of demand levels by the City of Hot Springs, the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics, or Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) The expressed desire, intent, and ability of the City to achieve airport land use compatibility, coupled with favorable aesthetics transition, remains important planning and funding considerations PHASED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The Phased Implementation Plan is divided into the following terms: Phase I (0-5 years) – Short-term implementation projects Phase 2 (6-10 years) – Mid-term implementation projects Phase 3 (11-20 years) – Long-term implementation projects
Implementation July 2022 Page 146 of 159 Each phase consists of projects and improvements categorized by the following areas: 1) airside improvements and 2) terminal/landside improvements. The airside and terminal /landside implementation projects within each phase and their associated costs are shown in Table 6-1 through Table 6-3. TABLE 6-1 SHORT-TERM PROJECTS HOT SPRINGS MEMORIAL FIELD SHORT-TERM DEVELOPMENT NO. CAPITAL PROJECTS 2023-2025 COST CAPITAL PROJECTS 2023 1 TERMINAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I(EXTERIOR, MECHANICAL/ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS) $2,900,000 2 TAXIWAYA, TAXIWAYB, & TAXIWAYC REHABILITATION $3,370,000 3 CORPORATE HANGAR/APRON DEVELOPMENT - PHASE I(60' X 60' HANGAR CONSTRUCTION) $400,000 4 TERMINAL SOLAR PANEL CONSTRUCTION $310,000 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 2023 $6,980,000 CAPITAL PROJECTS 2024 5 TERMINAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II(INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS) $850,000 6 RUNWAY31 THRESHOLD DISPLACEMENT (REIMBURSEMENT) $163,000 7 TAXIWAYE, H, & M REHABILITATION (CRACK REPAIR, LIGHTING, AND SIGNAGE) $400,000 8 SELF-SERVE AVGAS FUELING FACILITY(SOUTH RAMP) $300,000 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 2024 $1,713,000 CAPITAL PROJECTS 2025 9 RUNWAY5-23 REHABILITATION (MILL, OVERLAY, AND LIGHTING) $6,350,000 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 2025 $6,350,000 TOTAL SHORT-TERM PROJECT COSTS $15,043,000
Implementation July 2022 Page 147 of 159 TABLE 6-2 MID-TERM PROJECTS HOT SPRINGS MEMORIAL FIELD MID-TERM DEVELOPMENT NO. CAPITAL PROJECTS 2026-2030 COST 1 HANGAR RAMP EXPANSION/HANGAR CONSTRUCTION - WESTOF FBO/TERMINAL $5,710,000 2 ARFF FACILITYCONSTRUCTION $1,400,000 3 AIRPORTENTRANCE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II (PHASE II CONSTRUCTION) $1,510,000 4 TERMINAL APRON & TAXIWAYS - PHASE 5 (EXTEND TAXIWAYA TO TAXIWAYD $3,820,000 5 RUNWAY13-31 REHABILITATION (MILL, OVERLAY, PAVEMENT REMOVAL, & LIGHTING) $1,870,000 6 EXTEND RUNWAY23 AND TAXIWAYD EXTENSION $6,510,000 7 TERMINAL RAMP EXPANSION/HANGAR CONSTRUCTION - EASTOF FBO/TERMINAL BUILDING $5,110,000 TOTAL MID-TERM PROJECT COSTS $25,930,000 TABLE 6-3 LONG-TERM PROJECTS HOT SPRINGS MEMORIAL FIELD LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT NO. CAPITAL PROJECTS 2031-2040 COST 1 PARALLEL TAXIWAY CONSTRUCTION (SOUTHEAST SIDE OF RUNWAY 5-23) $6,860,000 2 FBO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION/RELOCATE SELF-SERVE FUEL SYSTEM $1,220,000 3 TERMINAL PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS $1,410,000 4 SOUTH RAMP EXPANSION/TAXIWAY CONSTRUCTION $2,460,000 5 T-HANGAR DEVELOPMENT $6,860,000 6 TAXIWAY E RE-ALIGNMENT & TAXIWAY H & M RECONSTRUCTION $3,000,000 7 RAMP/TAXIWAY/HANGAR DEVELOPMENT IN PLACE OF CURRENT VOR CLEARZONE - PHASE 1 $2,200,000 8 RAMP/TAXIWAY/HANGAR DEVELOPMENT IN PLACE OF CURRENT VOR CLEARZONE - PHASE 2 $2,200,000 TOTAL LONG-TERM PROJECT COSTS $26,210,000