My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Res 2001-006
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
03 Resolutions
>
2000 s
>
2002
>
Res 2001-006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/21/2007 3:28:04 PM
Creation date
10/11/2005 3:41:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Resolutions
Number
2001-06
Date
1/14/2002
Volume Book
146
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
244
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />TABLE 4A <br />Airport Development Alternative Summary <br />San Marcos Municipal Airport <br /> ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES <br />Alternative 1 . Runway 12-30 current primary . Runway 12-30 only 6,400 feet <br /> runway · Require acquisition of property in <br /> . Portion of Runway 17-35 kept Reedville <br /> for small aircraft/training use . Maintenance cost of three runways <br /> . Easy to implement over time <br /> . ATCT best location as sun not <br /> factor in controller view <br /> . ARFF could be shared; good <br /> access with SH 21 <br /> . Large aviation and non- <br /> aviation development potential <br />Alternative 2 . Runway 17-35 best wind . Runway 17-35 far from current <br /> coverage runway ~ terminal area <br /> . Airport is provided north and . Maintaining three runways would <br /> south precision approaches be costly <br /> . ARFF could be shared with . Fee simple property acquisition <br /> multiple jurisdictions south (Gary Job Corps) required <br /> . ATCT centrally located . ARFF far from existing terminal; <br /> . Large aviation and non- may require ARFF vehicle to move <br /> aviation development potential on airport for each charter <br /> operation <br /> . ATCT view will be mainly into sun <br />Alternative 3 . Runway 8-26 closest to existing . Runway 8-26 not best for wind <br /> terminal coverage <br /> . Two runways closed requiring . Best wind coverage runway (17-35) <br /> less maintenance cost closed <br /> . ARFF on airport · Need to acquire easement west of <br /> . ATCT good view limited sun airport for RPZ <br /> . Largest non-aviation · May require relocation of Berry <br /> development potential Aviation facilities if precision <br /> . New airport entrance road approach implemented <br /> . Easy to develop over time . ARFF costs may not be shareable <br />Alternative 4 . Extension of Runway 4-22 can · Would require relocation of Berry <br /> be achieved mostly within Aviation facilities <br /> existing airport bounds · Property easements need to be <br /> . Three Runways provide good acquired north <br /> wind coverage · Two parallel taxiways would be <br /> . A TCT good view of all need for Runway 4-22 <br /> movement areas . Not easy to develop over time, <br /> . ARFF services could be shared require large financial <br /> with other jurisdictions commitments in short time spans <br /> · Least amount of non-aviation <br /> development potential <br /> <br />4-21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.