Appendix E – Curbfront Requirements

Transcription

T. F. Green Airport
Master Plan Update
This appendix contains a description of the curbfront demand/capacity analysis and
future requirements for the curbfront facilities at T. F. Green Airport that was meant for
use in the requirements chapter. This analysis was based on conditions at the
curbfronts prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001. New legislation by the
government and regulations enacted by the FAA has resulted in changes in how
curbfronts are used at U.S. airports and there may be further changes in the future.
Therefore, this information is largely out of date and was removed from the chapter. It
is provided here to serve as a basis for future analysis.
The terminal curbfronts serve as a gateway to T. F. Green by providing a temporary
storage area for vehicles transporting passengers to and from the surrounding roadway
system. The development of the curbfront facility requirements was a two-step process.
The first step involved a standard demand/capacity analysis based on observations and
existing conditions at T. F. Green. The second step involved an analysis of how
demand changes in response to congested conditions. The results of the first step were
therefore adjusted to reflect changing conditions that are expected as demand
increases.
The industry standard for analyzing curbfront demand and capacity is the “Foot-Minute
Methodology,” which determines the curbfront demand and capacity in units of
“foot-minutes.” The demand is calculated by multiplying the number of vehicles by the
vehicle length (feet) and the dwell time (minutes). The capacity is calculated by
multiplying the curb length (feet) by the time in the design period (minutes). The
demand is then compared to the capacity to obtain a demand/capacity ratio.
At T. F. Green the curbfront demand is a function of four components:
•
The total number of vehicles using the curbfront during the peak hour
•
The physical length of each vehicle type, including maneuvering space
•
The average time vehicles queue at the curbfront
•
The number of times each vehicle stops at the curb
The highest concentration of traffic within the peak hour is typically realized in a
20-minute increment. Therefore, in addition to calculating the peak hour demand, the
peak 20-minute demand was determined, which was defined as half the peak hour
demand.
As mentioned, curbfront capacity is also calculated in units of foot-minutes and is a
function of the length of curb (feet), the time in the design period (minutes), and the
number of lanes adjacent to the curb. The number of lanes is important because
double-parking may occur in the second or third lane of a multi-lane terminal roadway.
A minimum of two lanes is required to safely accommodate vehicle activity. If
double-parking is not permitted, the effective curb length is equal to the linear curb
E-1
April 10, 2002
T. F. Green Airport
Master Plan Update
length. If double-parking is permitted, the effective curb length can reach up to
170 percent of the actual physical curb length. In cases where the unloading zone is
wide enough to permit triple parking without impacting the designated through lanes, the
effective curb length can reach up to 200 percent of the actual curb length. The
effective curb capacity (in foot-minutes) is calculated by multiplying the effective curb
length (feet) by 60 minutes to account for the peak hour or by 20 minutes to account for
the peak 20-minute time period.
A demand/capacity ratio was calculated for each year by dividing the curbfront demand
by its effective capacity. A demand/capacity ratio less than 0.85 represents an
acceptable Level of Service (LOS); a ratio between 0.85 and 1.0 indicates the curb
space is approaching capacity. A ratio of 1.0 or higher indicates the curb is operating in
excess of its designated operational capacity. Prudent planning also dictates that
facilities be planned to an 85 percent design level in order to help ensure adequate curb
capacity regardless of unforeseen peaking or incidents on the curb.
E.1 Existing Conditions
The terminal building is served by a two-level roadway system. An upper level roadway
serves departing passengers while a lower level roadway serves arriving passengers.
The lower level roadway is split between an inner and outer roadway separated by a
raised median.
The upper level terminal curb serves departing (enplaning) passengers. The upper
level roadway consists of three marked lanes – two are marked through lanes and the
third lane is a double lane wide enough to accommodate two lanes of parked vehicles
for active passenger drop off. The drop-off zone is approximately 735 feet long and is
separated from the terminal entry doors by a concrete curb. The inner drop-off lane is
slightly wider to provide additional area for passengers and bags to be off-loaded from
vehicles. The drop-off lane is for short-term unloading (drivers remain with their
vehicles). Vehicles at the drop-off lane include automobiles, taxis, hotel/motel shuttles,
parking shuttles, door-to-door shuttles, and other miscellaneous vehicles. The through
lanes are for access to the curb, parking garage access, and connection to the airport
loop roadway. Skycap services are provided to assist passengers with their baggage.
The lower level terminal curb serves arriving (deplaning) passengers. The inner portion
of the lower level roadway consists of three marked lanes – one for active passenger
pick up, which can accommodate two lanes of parked vehicles, and two through lanes.
The lower level pickup lane is for short-term passenger loading by automobiles, and the
on-airport parking shuttle. The through lanes are for access to the curb, parking garage
access, and connection to the airport loop roadway. The pick-up lane is approximately
747 feet long and is separated from the terminal by a 21-foot wide concrete curbside
sidewalk.
E-2
April 10, 2002
T. F. Green Airport
Master Plan Update
A raised median (approximately 43 feet wide) separates the inner three-lane and outer
two-lane lower level roadways. This median narrows to 34 feet in many areas to create
sheltered loading areas served by the two through lanes on the lower level roadway.
These sheltered pull-off loading areas are used by taxis, hotel/motel shuttles, off-airport
parking shuttles, door-to-door shuttles, the Rhode Island Public Transit
Authority (RIPTA) bus, and other miscellaneous vehicles while awaiting arriving
passengers. These sheltered pull-off loading areas measure approximately 420 feet
long.
The lower level pedestrian crosswalks lead from the four terminal doorways across the
inner and outer lower level roadways to the main short-term parking lot. Flashing lights
and stop signs require traffic to stop and yield to pedestrians before proceeding across
each crosswalk. All pedestrians from the main parking lot must proceed across the
crosswalks of the lower level inner and outer roadways to enter the terminal, with
departing passengers proceeding to the second level via interior escalators.
E.2 Existing Curbfront Demand/Capacity
Table E-1 summarizes the physical characteristics of each curbfront, and the peak hour
and peak 20-minute capacities for the upper and lower levels. As shown, the effective
curb length on the upper level is 70 percent greater than its length, because of
double-parking. Likewise, the inner curbfront on the lower level has an effective
capacity 70 percent greater than its lineal length. Overall the upper and lower level
curbs provide an effective curb length of 2,940 feet.
Table E-1
CURBFRONT CAPACITY
T. F. Green Airport
Linear Length of Curb
(feet)
Number of Lanes
Adjacent to Curb
Outside Lane
Utilization Factor
Effective Curb Length
(feet)
Peak Hour Capacity
(foot-minute)
Peak 20-Minute
Capacity (foot-minute)
Upper Level
Lower Level
Inner Lanes
Lower Level
Outer Lanes
Total
735
747
420
2,229
2
2
1
N/A
1.7
1.7
1.0
N/A
1,250
1,270
420
2,940
75,000
76,200
25,200
176,400
25,000
25,400
8,400
58,800
E-3
April 10, 2002
T. F. Green Airport
Master Plan Update
As explained above, the demand on a curbfront is defined in terms of the number of
vehicles accessing the curbfront, the operating length of each vehicle type, the vehicle's
dwell time, and the number of times that a vehicle stops along the curbfront. Vehicle
demand and dwell time data were obtained from a survey taken in October 2000 for this
study (see Appendix A, Survey Results).
Results from the survey show that the peak hour utilization of the departure (upper
level) curb was 498 vehicles - 199 (40.0 percent) in the peak 20 minutes. During this
peak period, 77 percent of the vehicles were private autos, six percent were taxicabs,
and the remainder were a mixture of hotel, rental car, and parking shuttles. During this
peak period, double-parking in some areas was commonplace with occasional
triple-parking by vehicles stopping in the inside through lane. Approximately 15 to
20 vehicles dwelled at one time with the maximum of 30 vehicles at 6:10 a.m. The
average dwell time for private automobiles was three minutes and 43 seconds, with the
median being one minute and 38 seconds. Courtesy shuttle vehicles typically stopped
at the curb for less than 30 seconds to 1.5 minutes.
Peak hour utilization of the arrival (lower level) curb was 174 vehicles - 68 (39 percent)
in the peak 20 minutes. For the most part, private autos and the on-airport parking
shuttles used the inner curb (66 in the peak hour). Taxis, rental car/hotel/off-airport
parking shuttles, and other assorted commercial vehicles used the outer curb (108 in
the peak hour). Approximately 85 percent of the vehicles using the inner curb were
automobiles. Approximately 26 percent of the vehicles using the outer curb were taxis,
65 percent were shuttles, and nine percent were other types of vehicles. During the
peak hour, between 15 and 19 vehicles were dwelling at the curb. The mean dwell time
was 10 minutes and 10 seconds for private autos on the inner curb, over 13 minutes for
the taxis on the outer curb, and two to five minutes for the assorted types of shuttles.
Several vehicles were observed to dwell at the curb for more than 20 minutes.
Based on the values above, the existing upper level is experiencing approximately
15,635 foot-minutes of activity (length of vehicle plus maneuvering area, times length of
time dwelling at the curb) during the peak 20 minutes. This is beyond the effective
capacity of the curb if double-parking is not considered (12,699 foot-minutes of
capacity), but only 72 percent of the effective capacity of 21,590 foot-minutes if
double-parking is permitted throughout the entire length.
The existing inner roadway on the lower level is experiencing 6,277 foot-minutes of
activity – well within the effective capacity of the single curb (12,699 foot-minutes of
capacity) without considering double-parking. By contrast, primarily due to the high
average dwell time of the taxis and some shuttles as they wait for customers, the
activity level of 9,944 foot-minutes on the outer commercial curb actually exceeds the
capacity of 8,400 foot-minutes. This indicates that some vehicles are stopping in one of
the through lanes or that dwell times in the peak 20-minute period are less than the
average recorded over the hour.
E-4
April 10, 2002
T. F. Green Airport
Master Plan Update
E.3 Future Curbfront Demand/Capacity
Future demand levels were forecast for each mode classification (vehicles, busses,
taxis, shuttle vans, etc.) by developing a relationship between enplanements and
curbfront demand levels. It was assumed that the demand experienced at the curbs
would grow at the same rate as originating enplanements. It was assumed that the
connecting percentages for international originating enplanements would be the same
as for forecast domestic enplanements. The draft forecast passenger levels used in this
analysis are summarized in Table E-2.
Table E-2
PEAK HOUR ENPLANEMENT/DEPLANEMENT ACTIVITY
T. F. Green Airport
Year
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Originating
Enplanements
Percent Increase
From Existing
Terminating
Deplanements
Percent Increase
From Existing
1,049
1,272
1,517
1,765
2,053
N/A
21.3%
44.6%
68.3%
95.7%
947
1,176
1,403
1,633
1,898
N/A
24.2%
48.2%
72.4%
100.4%
Note: Based on draft forecasts prior to development of final forecasts.
If there is no noticeable shift in the mode split in travel to the airport and no changes to
the existing dwell times by vehicle type, the peak 20-minute utilization should increase
in general proportion to the increase in peak hour passengers. Table E-3 shows
projected growth in peak hour activity (based on the draft forecasts).
Table E-3
PROJECTED PEAK 20-MINUTE CURBFRONT UTILIZATION
T. F. Green Airport
Upper Level
All Vehicles
Year
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Effective
Capacity
21,250
21,250
21,250
21,250
21,250
Forecast
Demand
15,635
18,965
22,688
26,314
30,598
Lower Level
Private Autos
D/C
0.74
0.89
1.07
1.24
1.44
Effective
Capacity
21,590
21,590
21,590
21,590
21,590
Forecast
Demand
6,277
7,796
9,303
10,822
12,579
Lower Level
Commercial Vehicles
D/C
0.29
0.36
0.43
0.50
0.58
Effective
Capacity
7,140
7,140
7,140
7,140
7,140
Forecast
Demand
9,944
12,062
14,379
16,736
19,460
D/C
1.39
1.69
2.01
2.34
2.73
Notes: Requirements were calculated based on the draft forecasts and were not updated to reflect the
final forecasts.
Capacity and demand numbers expressed in foot-minutes.
E-5
April 10, 2002
T. F. Green Airport
Master Plan Update
The above would indicate that the upper level will be operating at an unacceptable LOS
by 2005, while the commercial vehicles loading passengers and baggage on the outer
roadway of the lower level already exceeds its theoretical capacity.
E.4 Adjusted Curbfront Requirements
The above analysis determined that based on operating procedures in place in 2000
and 2001, additional curb capacity would be needed in the 20-year planning horizon.
However, minor changes in the operating procedures of the curbfront would allow it to
serve forecast demand. The requirements identified in the first step of the analysis
were therefore adjusted to reflect the following changes in utilization patterns:
•
Reduce dwell times for private automobiles dropping off passengers on the upper
level from nearly four minutes to 2-2.5 minutes.
•
On the lower level outer commercial curb, the long dwell times for taxis could be
altered by limiting the number of cabs that are permitted to queue at any one
time and having the remaining cabs wait in a holding area before being called to
the terminal for a pick-up. Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC) provides a
holding area near the belly cargo facility so this could be easily accomplished.
•
The average dwell time for door-to-door vans (nearly 17 minutes) and for the
various shuttles (three to five minutes) could be reduced by providing a holding
area in the vicinity of the terminal.
Many of these changes occur naturally as congestion increases. For example, average
dwell times typically decline as more patrons are forced to double-park – a situation that
typically encourages shorter duration for loading and unloading. As activity increases,
commercial carriers and shuttle bus operators frequently change to larger vehicles
rather than increase frequency. The result is shorter dwell time per person transported.
Also, as congestion at terminal curbs increases, airports typically increase enforcement
in order to further reduce the average dwell time. In addition, the use of rental car
shuttle buses will be eliminated once the planned Intermodal Station is constructed in
mid-2005, further reducing curbfront traffic.
There have been many changes in the way the curbfront operates since September 11
that have actually accelerated the implementation of the above operational procedures
and improved the capacity of the curbfront. For example, vehicles are no longer
permitted to stand at the curb if they are not actively loading or unloading (this is
enforced by police officers and reduces dwell times). In addition, no more than three
taxi cabs are permitted to queue at the curb, all others must wait in a holding area. If
these conditions continue, the existing curbfront would be sufficient to serve T. F. Green
virtually to the year 2020.
S:\02PVD\Master Plan\Final Document\Appendices\appendix E.doc
E-6
April 10, 2002
T. F. Green Airport
Master Plan Update
Appendix F – Full Range of Airfield Concepts
This appendix contains exhibits of the initial range of concepts developed during the
planning process (See Exhibit F-1, Exhibit F-2, Exhibit F-3, Exhibit F-4, Exhibit F-5,
Exhibit F-6 and Exhibit F-7.). Input from the Study Resource Committee (SRC) and
the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC) staff, together with analysis by the master
plan team, was used to develop a full range of airfield concepts. This initial range of
concepts included a wide range of options including a “do nothing” scenario, closure of
the airport, minimal growth beyond the airport boundary, minor improvements to correct
existing operational deficiencies and improve safety, runway extensions, and new
parallel runways. Four groups of concepts were developed:
•
Group A concepts’ primary goal is to have minimal or no development of the
airfield. These concepts fall short of meeting the facility requirements identified
in Chapter III, Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements.
•
Group B concepts aim to provide the needed capacity enhancements by
providing two parallel runways (in addition to the crosswind runway) with 1,200 to
2,500 feet of lateral separation between the runways, which yields varying levels
of dependence. A 1,200-foot separation is the separation required for Design
Group V or VI1 aircraft in order to allow simultaneous operations in good weather.
A separation of 2,500 feet allows simultaneous arrivals and departures or
simultaneous dual departures in poor weather, but not simultaneous arrivals.
•
Group C concepts increase capacity by providing two parallel runways (in
addition to the crosswind runway) that are separated laterally by 4,300 to
3,000 feet, which yields varying levels of independence. The normally approved
minimum separation for dual independent approaches is 4,300 feet. The FAA
will consider a minimum of 3,000 feet where 4,300 feet is impractical.
•
Group D concepts increase capacity by using two parallel runways (in addition to
the crosswind runway) with 5,000 feet of lateral separation, which yields
independent parallel runways. A 5,000-foot separation is the recommended
separation for simultaneous dual operations in all weather conditions (although
as noted above, the FAA will consider a minimum of 3,000 feet lateral
separation).
After reviewing the full list of concepts and considering the input received at the April 25,
2002 SRC meeting and the RIAC Board’s goals and objectives for the long-term vision
of T. F. Green, RIAC decided that it was not willing to consider 20-year airfield concepts
with extreme impacts (such as widely spaced parallel runways). RIAC then instructed
the team to specifically consider concepts that fall short of the 20-year needs identified
in Chapter III, Demand/Capacity and Facility Requirements, along with concepts that do
1
Group V and VI include aircraft with wingspans of 171 feet up to but not including 262 feet (examples
include the MD-11, Boeing 767, Boeing 747, and Boeing 777).
F-1
November 2002
T. F. Green Airport
Master Plan Update
meet the 20-year needs. This policy decision by RIAC resulted in elimination of all of
the Group C and D concepts and most of the Group B concepts. It also resulted in the
addition of new Group A concepts.
S:\02PVD\Master Plan\Final Document\Appendices\appendix F.doc
F-2
November 2002
T. F. Green Airport
Business Community Charrette
T. F. GREEN AIRPORT
BUSINESS COMMUNITY
VISIONING CHARRETTE RESULTS
September 28, 2000
Attendees:
Janet White
Richard Plotkin
John Cruz
Norris Waldron
Matt Ellis
Marion Quinn
Jim Skeffington
Herb Cummings
Merrill Sherman
Tracey Kennedy
Elaine Roberts
Wayne Schuster
Mark Brewer
Pam Okolita
Anastasia Lyman
Mark Perryman
Russell Blanck
Tom Klin
Providence Chamber of Commerce
Rooney Plotkin & Willey
J.C. Electric Inc.
Waldron Property
WPRI-TV/CBS 12
Brown University
Esq., Edwards & Angell
Citizens Financial Group
Bank of Rhode Island
Veouzon
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
Edwards & Kelcey
ALA
Landrum & Brown
Landrum & Brown
Landrum & Brown
OPPORTUNITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Raise finances through fees
Improve retail concessions
Build upon success of airport and terminal
New York shuttle service to attract more market share
Market to corporate jet service
Remote access to Quonset with intermodal connection
Economic impact of improvements
Additional airlines growth
Grow scheduled international service
Intermodal
Retain convenience (don’t become another Logan)
Runway system review (longer runway or 3rd runway)
Target marketing for regional draw
Commuter rail
Park & Ride
Landrum & Brown
-1-
S:\02PVD\MASTER PL AN\FINAL DOCU MENT\WEBSITE\BUSINESS COMMUNITY COMMENTS.DOC
September 28, 2000
Draft-Deliberative Materials
T. F. Green Airport
OPPORTUNITIES, Continued
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Increase international charters
Cargo operations location and ground access
Improved business and airline clubs
Airport hotel and meeting rooms
Develop entertainment facilities near airport
Improved airport = economic growth for region
Improve community relations
Expand flight and destinations
CONSTRAINTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Land lock
Terminal capacity and size
Local community
Route 95 dependency for access
High speed train competition
Finances
Market size
Ability to influence airline routes
Other regional airports
Noise overflights
Airfield runway length constrains west coast flights
STRENGTHS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Size (small)
Easy access
Low cost air fares
Central location
Attractive terminal
Manageable size
Good airline schedules/flight connections
Airport amenities and concessions
Safe and friendly
Sense of place-Rhode Island
Service is predictable
Non-political leadership = credibility
Good/accessible parking
Best leadership with current administration
Landrum & Brown
-2-
September 28, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
WEAKNESSES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Public transportation
Short-term parking
Public restrooms (dirty/poor design)
More direct flights
Pedestrian/curbfront conflicts
Access from long-term parking
No airline clubs
No nice airport hotel
Jet service to New York City
Public perception of safety issues
Note: The text in bold/italics are those items of most importance to the group.
Landrum & Brown
-3-
September 28, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
Public Workshop Charrette
T. F. GREEN AIRPORT
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
VISIONING CHARRETTE RESULTS SUMMARY
October 12, 2000
OPPORTUNITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Shouldn’t explore any – the airport is in a residential area and the population
should be the number one priority
Reducing the number of flights
Restrict flights from 23:30 to 06:30 – all flights (Maintain the Curfew) – Move
curfew to 8PM to 8AM – Move curfew to 11PM to 7 AM
General opposition to airport expansion – Build within the Airport
Need to purchase all the land and houses at fair market price and in one move
so the people will stop worrying and getting angry at the Airport Authorities
Lengthening Runway 16/34 to the south
Clear-zone for safety
Close down entirely
Use smaller aircraft
Fine the airlines and pilots when the decibel level is exceeded
Consider the people of Warwick, Cranston and RI, not Conn. And Mass
Decreasing noise in AM especially and throughout the day in Cowesett
Contribute to the second largest, fastest growing industry in RI.
Contribute to the quality of life of RI residents through economic success, access
to the outside
Leverage RI’s attractive, varied and compact geography and history, offering
potential for unique tourism, convention packages.
We are all very, very angry and do not want growth anywhere, any time, any
place.
The airport should acknowledge that its attractiveness is a result of its convenient
size. The lack of huge crowds makes the airport accessible and doesn’t overload
my city’s infrastructure.
Cooperating with the citizens of Warwick to ensure productive relationships
Maintain the existing size and easy access
The residents
The noise level that the residents have to put up with not only in the perimeter
but for the whole city in which planes may fly over the residents houses
The number of planes that leave and land within a two minute period
Move the Airport to Quonset – Take advantage of Quonset for the
accommodation of international and cargo flights – Shuttle service to and from
Green to Quonset
Being more efficient with the resources already there
Some connection/alliance with Quonset Point facility
Landrum & Brown
-1-
S:\02PVD\MASTER PL AN\FINAL DOCU MENT\WEBSITE\PUBLIC 10-12 CHARRETTE COMMENTS.DOC
October 12, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Health of people in surrounding area
Possibility of a plane crash in houses surrounding the airport
Noise factors of houses in surrounding area – sound-proofing muffles the sound,
it does not go completely away
Pollution
If the planes turn Green into Logan, it is doomed to failure
How to make the Airport the talk of the nation and respect the limits
Expand corporate and GA facilities
Solve Airport Rd, Post Rd. traffic problems by expanding Route 37 east to
Warwick Ave. then close off Airport Rd.
Expand ramp and hangar areas and make enterprise zones
Listen to what the people say
Slow down growth plan
Train travel for passengers out of state
CONSTRAINTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
No room
Surrounded by residential area
Excess pollution
Negative effect on life
People want it to stay as a local airport
Market and/or technological changes will occur in the airline industry and its
customers. Airlines and their customers can and will make choices about using
or not using TFG
TFG is still in transition from an “airport in a residential neighborhood” to a
recognized and accepted, or at least tolerated, infrastructure element.
TFG is not yet recognized universally in RI as a vital and necessary element in
the turnaround of RI from a shrinking economy to one with growth, more and
better jobs.
We will all oppose this- we will stop you if we can
The knee-jerk reaction to make something bigger doesn’t necessarily result in an
enhanced airport nor an enhanced quality of life for those who live near this thing
Environmental impacts to waterways, lands, and habitats
Further impact on surrounding schools
Get rid of TF Green and make them move to Quonset where it is already set up
for a big airport. I am afraid of a plane crash over my house
Highway access
If airlines moved out of the airport
More air traffic poses a risk of a catastrophe in those neighborhoods
Political misunderstanding
Cargo facilities inadequate – move to Quonset ?
Uneducated populace with strong Not in My Back Yard syndrome
Location
When the big dig is over, more traffic will use Boston
Airplanes from Green to Boston in holding patterns
Landrum & Brown
-2-
October 12, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
To expand does not mean success
The ease of use of the airport is its only benefit. If congestion and lack of parking
take over people will use other airports. Noise and pollution will also be its
demise
It is a peculiar shape
It is smaller than the expectations of its stakeholders to make money
It is enshrined in conventional ideas of progress and growth
Anti-airport sentiments
The ability to force itself into our neighborhoods
The airport could be less successful if it tries to be bigger than its location permits
The impossibility of expansion without adversely effecting the quality of existing
residential life
Failure to disclose important factual data when safety incidents or accidents
occur
Failure to disclose disconcerting safety procedures (landing on one runway,
taking off in opposite direction with next flight
Forget about becoming an international airport
Forget about TF Green and move to Quonset
A recession would cause the airport to be less successful
A failure of the major carriers would cause the airport to be less successful
Unsafe environment for travelers due to ghetto effect of decreasing land/
property values
Too small runways for new air-travel technology
Wetlands disruption
Landing and take off hours are not enforced
Letting the politicians get involved
Lack of inexpensive airline fees
Lack of citizen support
Increasing organization of citizen opposition
End of low-cost fares
Displacement of residents
Size of our state and of Warwick
One crash destroying homes and people
Obsolete would be good
If expand airport, future erosion of Warwick’s tax base
Expansion will cause the traffic problems that Logan faces
Competing airports
Is 20 years visioning enough? Where is Rhode Island going?
I don’t believe the airport requires significant physical expansion or additional
runways to remain competitive. As long as facilities are maintained and the
physical plant and equipment are updated as technology progresses, there is no
reason why TF Green can’t continue to handle a significant volume of
passengers. The airport doesn’t need to be the biggest to be the best at what it
does
They acquire land and don’t have to pay taxes to the city
The surrounding network of roads is already being taxed. Airport and Post Rds
already have a heavy volume of traffic
Landrum & Brown
-3-
October 12, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
Reduction in oil reserves globally i.e. jet fuel
Dramatic increase in oil prices i.e. jet fuel
An organized campaign by neighbors to tell the truth about TF Green
Increased use of trains, buses, Logan after the big dig is completed
Would developing a second airport ‘pay for itself’ in creating new business
opportunities for RI?
Lack of an air carrier parallel runway for the long term
Lack of room to expand in the terminal area for the short-term
No leaseable area left in terminals
Obsolescence of north ramp area
Competitive forces from other airports
Lack of desirable modernized rental space (non-terminal)
Finite ops growth/type of operations due to runway lengths/configuration
Finite growth due to terminal area/gate space (aircraft types)
Warwick has valuable waterfront properties. What can give much more money to
the city than the airport, what is tax exempt?
The community must be informed and taken seriously for their input
Less traveling public
Less security for flyers
More personal involvement
When you arrive, you are in Warwick, not Providence
If the train station does not come in
Clear zones on 23 + 6
Too many complaints make it less successful
Public image is that RIAC is not interested in residential issues
Slow Action on expansion, sound mitigation, even slower distribution of money
STRENGTHS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
One advantage that our airport has is the proximity to RT 295 and RT 95…Two
major interstates…Learn from Logan and similar airports
If you want advantages, fly out of Quonset
Its small size
Easy to travel from here
TF Green is becoming a “full service” airport, yet is easy and friendly to
passengers
Potential for unique intermodel transportation link-up with AMTRAK and the T
Logan has a terrible image of difficult access
Once you are in TFG, you have close access to all that is good in Providence,
the rest of RI (beaches, Newport, etc.) Cape Cod, etc.
None of the residents of Warwick want it here
Cost of flights
No strengths- should have moved the airport to Quonset
It is accessible and easy to manage- keep it this way
Good location for business
Regional access
Landrum & Brown
-4-
October 12, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Plenty of hotel space
Parking garages
People mover
Train station
The only advantage necessary is easy entrance and exit
Its peculiar shape
Combining a community airport with a modern airport
It served a large area, a large population, while not ‘bottlenecking’ like Boston
and New York
Convenience to future rail transportation
Too many other issues that need to be addressed before this question can even
be discussed
Central location in state
Its ability to serve the numbers it now serves
There are more rural airports in NE that can absorb this market
Pay taxes to Warwick
None
Prime example of a shrewd question- only possible answer is pro-development
It is in a bad area- do not see how it has been allowed to expand this far
Closed midnight to six
More personal, less industrial
Make sure we have airlines like Southwest
Appearance – surroundings are pleasant and comfortable, and hey- you can’t
beat those Potato Head statues
Allowing planes to come in at all hours of the night- this should be stopped, there
should be stiff penalties
Not being a national hub
One of its weaknesses is its strength- central location. No place in RI is more
than 30 minutes from the airport
The expansion is unlimited as far as how large it can grow.
The terminal is a beautiful building and very clean
Close proximity to congested areas, Logan, Boston
WEAKNESSES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
It was meant to be a small airport – leave it that way
Noise
Congestion
Failure to listen to local residents
Vulnerability to anything that happens to make short flights tying to long/medium
flights a less marketable airline schedule, especially for incoming travelers
Dependence on USAir, Southwest to provide the frequency and fares that make
TFG competitive with cities having more direct flight access across US
We have not formed TFG/Warwick/Providence/RI into a “seamless” easy and
economic destination package
Impacts on roads and parks
Landrum & Brown
-5-
October 12, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
Threat of continued, unencumbered growth
Planes are landing while some are taking off – accidents
Land locked
Expansion and the resulting increased passenger volume will eventually choke
local roadways and make the airport less accessible
Pollution
Construction noise 24 hours a day
Too many houses must be taken
The definition implied here for “transportation resource”
Weaknesses are hard to find, as its location and facilities are convenient,
providing access to route south and north
Failure to respond to public concerns
Failure to adhere to curfew hours
It is cluttering my transportation in my neighborhood
The residential nature of Warwick is a weakness- safety risks
Limited space and short runways
Poor interaction and communication with community
NA- if you are a resident, living in the flight path
None
Too congested
Fly over schools
What does this mean anyway? If you think that because it is accessible, it’s ok to
expand. You are not asking the right questions
Risk of disaster
No weaknesses that outweigh expansion
Lack of support by neighbors because of shortage of funds for soundproofing
and buyouts
Loss of tax base
Property taxes rising while values decline due to impact of airport expansion
Links to major cities could be improved
Short term parking is expensive (although convenient)
Lack of gates for some Delta flights
Airport has a lack of hotels and motels
Runway lengths
Located in an environmentally sensitive area (wetland brook flood plain)
Airport has no control over airlines, people have no control over airport
Wetlands in the approach to R 34
Ancillary services/vendors/concessions are weak in comparison to other airports
(business centers, ambassadors, airline clubs, etc…)
Lack of overnight parking for aircraft
Lack of mass transit access from Providence to airport
Carrier cannibalization with BOS and/or BDL
I feel that RT 295 would have to be expanded to three lanes from Cranston down
to the connection to RT 95 in Warwick
Short, unsafe, non-FAA compliant runway (16/34)
Landrum & Brown
-6-
October 12, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
Considering your responses to the above questions, what are the most
significant issues that we must address as part of the strategic master planning
process?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Do not increase size
Do not extend runways
Must have curfews put in place and enforced
Extend 16/34 to the length of 5/23 to insure equal distribution of take-offs and
landings
No lengthening on 5/23
Change flight patterns over residential areas
Where are the factors we can’t control (aircraft technology, probable airline
industry decisions) headed?
What can and should we do to “sell” RI\TFG in view of the above, to the airlines?
To their customers?
How are impacted neighbors to be fairly compensated?
What does that require being done at TFG, and at what costs?
How do we deal with decisions that have positive statewide economic impact and
negative local impact?
We were mislead in the past and will not be lied to again
No growth beyond existing fence lines
Move to Quonset
The master plan should take into account Green’s present character and
surroundings
Safety issues
Noise and air pollution
You must consider and work with the public- we are being ignored
Congestion and parking in and around the airport will kill it
Don’t expand the airport and join the pressure for more efficient planes
Will this community support a major expansion?
Utilize what we have to the fullest
Expansion of services should occur at Quonset, connected by light rail shuttle,
creating a “twin airport” in the region
Public disclosure of all safety information; make available flight data, cockpit
voice recording, videotape ground traffic, landings and take-offs
Decreasing land values in Warwick
Decreasing the tax base in Warwick
Separate services i.e. Boston from Warwick, New York from Quonset Point
Buy the property at a fair price and let the residents get on with their lives
Runway 16/34 is too short
Remain a small or medium sized airport
Limit airport use
Move cargo to Quonset
The people should be allowed to vote on any further expansion permanently
Give Warwick residents property tax cuts for bearing the burden of the noise
pollution and traffic and lower property values.
Enforce flight patterns with lowest impacts on homes.
Landrum & Brown
-7-
October 12, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
Soundproof more homes – specifically in Governor Francis Farms
If it grows too large, it will lose its competitive advantage
Wetlands
Are the railroad project and the airport expansion being planned together?
Become more user-friendly
Give consideration to the Warwick taxpayers; less consideration to the greed of
the developers and big corporations
Condemn more houses to the south end of the runway
Control sprawl
Mishaps and near miss accidents
Upgrading all buildings and overnight parking areas
Continue to address noise issue
Curfews
Balancing economic interests with community ones
RIAC holds open, advertised, public meetings at all times
Types of aircraft allowed
Control number of flights per day
RIAC and FAA need to be more accountable and responsive to community need
Extension of crosswind runway to app. 7,000 feet
Continue to develop community and political support for the airport
Residential land acquisition for expansion
Development of aeroland property
Must be able to retain the airlines that we have in the face of competition from
other airports (Hartford/Bradley, Worchester, Manchester) by being able to offer
them more destination options
Secure other land/property surrounding airport
People need to know how big the airport plans on getting, will their houses be
bought?
Fumes are awful in the morning
Phase out Phase I and II jets to Phase III
Expand GA/ Corporate presence
Better PR and PAC to fight “bull” thrown by politicians up for re-election on antiairport themes
Buying my house for valet parking
Control towers near miss
To help us hold the value of our homes
Affirmative action in hiring with good wages, insure all residents are employed
We should be given discounts on all transportation
Traffic on Post Rd
Landrum & Brown
-8-
October 12, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
Regional Airports Charrette
T. F. GREEN AIRPORT
REGIONAL AIRPORTS
October 11, 2000
Attendees:
Steve Korta
Ken McNeill
Jeff Schultes
Stewart Dalzell
Betty Desrosiers
Kevin Dillon
Jack Ferns
Ronald Wanner
Elaine Roberts
Wayne Schuster
Mark Brewer
Ken Scarborough
Eric Waldron
Gail Lattrell
Vince Scarano
Ralph Nicosia-Rusin
Jim Muldgoa
Bradley International Airport
Maine DOT
Portland International Airport
Massport
Massport
Manchester Airport
New Hampshire DOT Aeronautics
New Hampshire DOT Aeronautics
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
Edwards & Kelsey
Massport/Worchester Regional Airport
FAA-Airports Division
FAA-Consultant
OPPORTUNITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Governance structure
Master planning process (incorporate local needs)
Cargo expansion
Land use change
Increase in property values in surrounding community
Potential funding from Feds for regional capacity improvements
Economic benefits from an improved airport
Satellite navaids
Low cost airfare phenomenon
South Boston/Eastern Connecticut market draw
Define extent to which PVD can realize/control its vision
Landrum & Brown
-1-
S:\02PVD\MASTER PL AN\FINAL DOCU MENT\WEBSITE\REGION AL AIRPORTS CH ARRETTE COMMENTS.DOC
October 11, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
Regional Airports Charrette
CONSTRAINTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Land use – expansion
Airfield
Cost of expansion
Voluntary curfew
CONSTRAINTS, Continued
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Mixed roles (general aviation, cargo, passenger)
Gate gage and number
Taxiway/runway separation
Rail line and related development
Federal policy and grant assurances
STRENGTHS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
I-95 access/intermodal
New terminal
Passenger base
Low cost fares, parking, airline costs
Minimal operational delays (arrivals)
Community support (state, not local)
WEAKNESSES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Departure airspace capacity
Land use
Local opposition-City of Warwick
Lack of emanate domain capability
No direct funding resource
Runway length
Rail connection/service
Reliever attract general aviation demand
Landrum & Brown
-2-
S:\02PVD\MASTER PL AN\FINAL DOCU MENT\WEBSITE\REGION AL AIRPORTS CH ARRETTE COMMENTS.DOC
October 11, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
Regional Transportation Planners Charrette
T. F. GREEN AIRPORT
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS
September 15, 2000
Attendees:
Stephen Devine
Bob Johnson
Ralph Rizzo
Pam Okolita
George Johnson
Walter Slocomb
Marc Jaffee
Kevin Flynn
Tom Schumpert
Mark Brewer
Wayne Schuster
Mark Perryman
Russell Blanck
Tom Klin
Anastasia Lyman
RI Department of Transportation (RIDOT)
MBTA
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Edwards & Kelcey
RI Statewide Planning Program
RI Statewide Planning Program
West Warwick
City of Cranston
RI Economic Development Corp. (EDC)
RIAC
RIAC
Landrum & Brown
Landrum & Brown
Landrum & Brown
ALA
OPPORTUNITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Intermodal coordination relative to human scale, integrates travel info. (ITS),
Warwick train station development (Amtrak, MRTA)
Participate in regionalization
Greenway/walkway around airport boundary
Promote integration of rail projects that will serve other RI areas
Promote local planning near PVD for compatibility
Single point-of-operation bag check-in for train system
Marketing of growth plans
CONSTRAINTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Taxi cab operating restrictions (access/customer service)
Increased air traffic causing noise to surrounding communities
Nighttime curfew violations
Increased sphere of influence
I-95 congestion increasing
Landrum & Brown
-1-
S:\02P VD\M ASTER PLAN\FINAL DOCUM ENT\WEBSITE\REGIONAL TRANS PLANNERS CHARRETTE COMM ENTS.DOC
September 15, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
Regional Transportation Planners Charrette
CONSTRAINTS, Continued
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Land envelope
Aircraft technology (need quieter aircraft)
Rental car return capacity
Roadside access (loop road, Jefferson Blvd., Post Rd. traffic, Rt. 37 exit)
Decreasing quality of life due to airport growth
STRENGTHS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Size and location
Easy access
Parking location
User friendliness
Terminal
Competitive air fares
Proximity to Providence/Cape/Boston
WEAKNESSES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Lack of international service
Lack of direct flight to non-hub airports
Impact on public (negative perception)
Noise increase with expansion
Perception of out-of-state interlopers
Landrum & Brown
-2-
S:\02P VD\M ASTER PLAN\FINAL DOCUM ENT\WEBSITE\REGIONAL TRANS PLANNERS CHARRETTE COMM ENTS.DOC
September 15, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
RIAC Senior Staff Charrette
T. F. GREEN AIRPORT
RIAC SENIOR STAFF
October 12, 2000
Attendees:
Diane Gullo
Mary Soderstrum
Keith Holmanden
Sharon Bell
Nicole Williams
Dan Clarke
Al Moder
Paul Reeve
Susann Brown
Guy DeCristofaro
Mark Brewer
David Cloutier
Linda Burke
Alan Andrade
James Jarry
Wayne Schuster
Elaine Roberts
Ed Carter
James Zisiades
Jose DaSilva
David Edwards
Michael Mini
Mark Perryman
Russell Blanck
Tom Klin
Rob Adams
Suzanne Melby
Lisa Lepore
Anastasia Lyman
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
RIAC
Landrum & Brown
Landrum & Brown
Landrum & Brown
Landrum & Brown
Landrum & Brown
Landrum & Brown
ALA
OPPORTUNITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Intermodal access – train station development
More non-stop direct flights
Longer haul routes-international
Lengthen runway
Landside envelope
Landrum & Brown
-1-
S:\02PVD\MASTER PL AN\FINAL DOCU MENT\WEBSITE\RIAC SEN. STAFF CHARRETTE COMMENTS.DOC
October 12, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Consensus with public and political leaders on master plan
Enhanced revenue strength through cargo and corporate growth
General aviation relocation to reliever airports
Growth requires facility improvements (parking, security, concessions, etc.)
Regional airports constraints and timing of opportunities
Increased competition and availability for FBOs
Marketing
CONSTRAINTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Runway length
Environmental (wetland and streams)
Gate gauge
Roadway configuration
Available land and land-use compatibility
Space in terminal
No room for cargo and corporate/general aviation
Southeast landfill (hazmat)
Nighttime curfew
Lack of public support
Financial ability to grow (all regional airports)
Ozone non-attainment
Growth effect on staff, equipment and facilities
Operating costs
Terminal deliveries and refuse disposal
Downward economy impact on expansion plan
Hours of operation of support services (control tower)
Curbside check-in limited
Regional competition limiting markets service
Timing vs. opportunities loss
Land-lock by major roads
Maintenance location across main roadway (not on-airport)
Congestion during diversions from BOS (lack of airfield pavement)
STRENGTHS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Location
Access from I-95
Low airline fares
User friendly terminal (modern aesthetics)
Untapped markets capitalized
Diversity of carriers
Generates dollars for Rhode Island
Good air traffic control/good low weather coordination
Prime tourism
Landrum & Brown
-2-
October 12, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
STRENGTHS, Continued
10.
11.
12.
Customer service
Low noise complaints
Convenience
WEAKNESSES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Runway length
Airport is land locked
No international service
No intermodal connections
Nighttime curfew
Local politics/zoning
Gate gauge
No ramp space for overnight parking
Lack of interface with local and state planning
Perception that PVD is lowering quality of life for local residents
Lack of parallel runway
No dedicated gate for FIS
Aging north airfield facilities
Terminal is 100% occupied
Employee bathroom on 2nd floor
Landrum & Brown
-3-
October 12, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
Airport Tenants/Users Charrette
T. F. GREEN AIRPORT
AIRPORT TENANTS/USERS
September 14, 2000
Attendees:
Thomas Labrie
Jose Vieira
Greg Lampinski
Al Lamothe
James Thistlewaite
Harold Thistlewaite
Diran Derkosiofian
Jenny Dacosta
James Miklas
Cheryl Lamoureux
Bill Herendeen
Don Shotz
Robert Dresner
Brian Ballard
Donna St. Germain
Brian Wagner
David Field
Tom Celona
Allan Bethune
Lou Blanda
Merrill Lovett
Gregg Manning
Michelle McAdams
Southwest Airlines
Continental Airlines
Fedex
Ocean State Aero
P.T. Aero
P.T. Aero
Dollar Rental Car
Delta Airlines
Anton’s Airfoods
Churchill & Banks
A.D.S. Aviation Maintenance
Alamo Rental Car
Alamo Rental Car
United Airlines
9K Cape Air
Hertz Rental Car
Thrifty Car Rental
United Parcel Service
USAirways
Airport Taxi
Airport Taxi
American Eagle
OPPORTUNITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Lobby for more international flights
Increased air freight
Increased direct flights, destinations, and air service
Extend main runway
Grow terminal building for long-term growth
Increase customer amenities (retail, VIP rooms, corp. facilities)
Expand security check-point
Expand marketing efforts
Reallocate public parking to accommodate rental cars
Expand rental car company service on airport
Add control lights at cross-walks
Landrum & Brown
-1-
S:\02P VD\M ASTER PLAN\FINAL DOCUM ENT\WEBSITE\TENANTS CHARRETTE COMM ENTS.DOC
September 14, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Better signage to airport amenities (on and off-airport)
Move terminal service access across to Senator Street
Improve access for shuttle buses
Increase space in concourse
Increase facilities for passengers with disabilities-need more staff to service those
needing assistance (golf carts/wheel chairs)
Increase non-airport related parking at Warwick train station
Coordinate multi-modal connections
Foreign traveler assistance (information center, multi-language)
People movers
Duty free shops
Centralized deicing storage facility (utilities)
Jet maintenance center
CONSTRAINTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Airport access road
Runway length
Land envelope (airside and landside expansion)
Airport expenses
Cargo aircraft parking
Lack of cargo facilities
Vehicle traffic flow around airport (curbside too narrow, sidewalks too wide,
commercial lane too narrow, Post Rd. traffic)
Northeast/northwest ramps constrained for general aviation and cargo operations
Inadequate rental car facilities
Nighttime curfew
24-hour control tower needed
Limited remote overnight aircraft parking
Poor employee parking
Airport under staffed
Runway length (passenger and cargo service)
Terminal size/gate size
STRENGTHS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Easy access
Location
Low airfares
Low parking rates
User friendly
Regional roads less congested
Boston “Big Dig” impact
Landrum & Brown
-2-
September 14, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
STRENGTHS, Continued
8.
9.
10.
11.
Less air traffic delays
Customer service and quality of service
Number of destinations served
Community working relationship
WEAKNESSES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Need better curbfront enforcement
Too many crosswalks on lower level
Wide-body aircraft inability (gates, runway length/strength)
Circulation to Post Road
Location of terminal amenities (signage)
Baggage claim (make signs higher)
System security in baggage area
Rental car off-airport ground access to terminal (safety)
Baggage conveyer belt too high behind ticket counters
Limited parking for train commuters
Airport FIDS/BIDS accuracy and number
OTHER ISSUES
1.
2.
3.
Neighborhood relations
Airport expansion
Customer relation priority
Landrum & Brown
-3-
September 14, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
City of Warwick Charrette
T. F. GREEN AIRPORT
CITY OF WARWICK
October 12, 2000
Scott Avedisian
Mark Carruolo
Bill DePasquale
Sue Stenhouse
Gerald Gibbons
Richard DeGregio
Eugene Kelly
Carlo Pisaturo, Jr.
Donna Travis
Joseph Harrington, Jr.
Steve Merolla
Eleanor Sasso
James Donelan
Michael McCaffrey
Joseph McNamara
Denise Aiken
Paul Sherlock
John O’Leary
Warwick Mayor
Warwick Director of Planning
Warwick Planner
Warwick City Council
RI Senate
RI Senate
RI Senate
RI House of Representatives
RI House of Representative
RI House of Representative
Mayor of Cranston
OPPORTUNITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Use Quonset for cargo and FedEx
Utilize cargo rail that leads to/from Quonset
Extend curfew hours 2330 hours to 0630 hours
Unite Cranston and Warwick on PVD issues
Use CNEL metric to measure noise
Develop clean fuel initiative
Newer technology in aircraft jet engines
RIAC meetings should all be public and free of any charge (parking)
CONSTRAINTS
1.
FAA regulations
Landrum & Brown
-1-
S:\02PVD\MASTER PL AN\FINAL DOCU MENT\WEBSITE\WARWICK CHARRETTE COMMENTS.DOC
October 12, 2000
T. F. Green Airport
City of Warwick Charrette
STRENGTHS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Airport size
Convenience
Easy access
Look at what PVD is currently providing
Economic engine for Warwick and Rhode Island
WEAKNESSES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Lack of adequate curfew
No room for expansion
Lack of connectivity with Quonset
Maintenance is poor
PVD is source of noise and air pollution which contribute to cancer sources
Relationship between RIAC and community
Lack of continual communication with RIAC
Lack of credibility-forecasts arrived sooner-use of DNL noise meter
Landrum & Brown
-2-
S:\02PVD\MASTER PL AN\FINAL DOCU MENT\WEBSITE\WARWICK CHARRETTE COMMENTS.DOC
October 12, 2000
T. F. GREEN AIRPORT
Master Plan Study Resource Committee
List of Members
T. F. Green Airport
List of Members
Lindsay Adrain
(alternate for Cully Beasley)
Providence Airport Traffic Control Tower
Michael Conaboy
Delta Airlines & Airline Pilots Association
Derek Andersen
Warwick – Ward 8
Brian Conti
(alternate for Hope Pilkington)
Cranston Representative
Cully Beasley
Providence Airport Traffic Control Tower
Piers L. Curry
City of Cranston
Kip Bergstrom
Rhode Island Economic Policy Council
Michael DeLuca
City of Cranston Planning Department
Robert Blaikie
FedEx
William DePasquale
(alternative for Mark Carruolo)
City of Warwick Planning Department
Mark Brewer
RIAC
Maria Dutra
(alternate for Mark McKenney)
The Meadows
E. Colby Cameron
Cameron & Mittleman, LLP
Robert Eagan
(alternate for Karen Kalunian)
Mark Carruolo
City of Warwick
John Elsoffer
Warwick – Ward 2
Tom Celona
Post Road Business Association
Thrifty
Dave Field
Hertz Corporation
James Flanagan
Warwick – Ward 9
Michael Cheston
RIAC
Debbie Clark
(alternate for John Elsoffer)
Warwick – Ward 2
Gerald Flynn
Warwick – Ward 7
Kevin Flynn
City of Cranston
Duane Clinker
Charles Gaffney
RIAC Board
Beth Collins
(alternate for Kip Bergstrom)
Rhode Island Economic Policy Council
Ron Gagnon
Department of Environmental Management
-1-
T. F. Green Airport
List of Members
Janis Loiselle
Office of the Governor
The State House
Providence, RI 02903-1196
Anthony Longo
Warwick – Ward 5
Michelle Gallo
Landrum & Brown
Scott Godfrey
Eastern Regional Office
Air Transport Association of America
Norma Malachowski
(alternate for Raleigh Jenkins)
Patti Goldstein
RIAC Director of Public Affairs
Raleigh Jenkins
Kirk McDonough
Cranston – Alternate
Karen Kalunian
Warwick – Ward 1
Mark McKenney
Warwick – Ward 6
Thomas Klin
Landrum & Brown
Dave Mills
(alternate for Jerry Flynn)
Stephen Klinger
(alternate for Al Lamothe)
Rhode Island Pilots Association
John O’Brien
Rhode Island Statewide Planning
Suzanne Orenstein
Facilitator
Thomas Labrie
Southwest Airlines
Mark Perryman
Landrum & Brown
Karen LaChance
(alternate for Mike Walker)
Rhode Island Economic Development
Corporation
Hope Pilkington
Al Lamothe
Rhode Island Pilots Association
Janet White Raymond
Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce
Bob Lamoureux
Warwick - Ward 3
Ann Saccoccio
Warwick Ward 4
Gail Lattrell
Federal Aviation Administration
Robert Sangster
(alternate for Anthony Longo)
Warwick Ward 5
Heather Lees
Landrum & Brown
-2-
T. F. Green Airport
List of Members
Vince Scarano
(alternate for Gail Lattrell)
John van Woensel
Landrum & Brown
Michael Walker
Rhode Island Economic Development
Corporation
Peter Scotti
Robert Shawver
Department of Transportation
Sandra Whitehouse
General Assembly Staff
State House
John Silva
Frank Zamiello
Northstar Aviation
Paul Silva
(alternate for Robert Shawver)
Department of Transportation
Walter Slocomb
(alternate for John O’Brien)
Rhode Island Statewide Planning
Betty Confreda Smith
(alternate for Robert Tingle)
Warwick Station
Redevelopment Agency
Mary Soderstrum
RIAC
Joseph Solomon
(alternate for Anne Saccoccio)
Warwick – Ward 4
David Spengler
(alternate for Tom Celona)
Thrifty Car Rental
Robert Tingle, Jr.
Warwick Station
Redevelopment Agency
S:\02PVD\SRC\Members10-28-02.doc
-3-
T. F. GREEN AIRPORT
List of Meetings
T. F. Green Airport
List of Meetings
Meeting
Number
Date
1
2
3
4&5
6
7
8
April 5, 2001
May 30, 2001
June 28, 2001
July 25 and 26, 2001
January 24, 2002
March 5, 2002
April 25, 2002
9
10
June 5, 2002
July 11, 2002
S:\02PVD\SRC\MtgDates_Topics.doc
Topic
Initial Meeting & Draft Procedures
Airport & Neighborhood Tours
Inventory and Forecasts
Forecasting
Forecasting
Forecast Modifications
Draft Facility Needs & Preliminary Master
Plan Alternatives
Airfield Concepts
Alternatives

Appendix E – Curbfront Requirements

Transcription

Similar documents

AIRMAN`S INFORMATiON MANUAL

7851 Horan Wall Perspex Posters3.indd

Road Closure - Oregon International Air Show

Holiday Houses Costa Brava Airport bus to Barcelona

PA NEWS - Port Authority Retirees Association, Inc.

Kuala Lumpur International Airport

- Coursefinders

London Airport`s Cloud Based Common Use System

Indian Oil Corporation Limite

Detention Area