At a packed Oregon Department of Aviation open house Thursday, June 13, community members had the opportunity to learn about and provide feedback on preliminary options for the new Aurora State Airport master plan.
Large boards displaying the preliminary options, referred to as “alternatives,” were spaced around the room and groups of attendees scanned the alternatives with members from the ODAV and others present for questions.
The options address identified needs for the airport based on Federal Aviation Administration requirements, current airport activity and forecasted demand. All four alternatives for “airside facilities,” which relate to aircraft movement like take off and taxiing, include a 497-foot increase of the 5,000-foot runway.
A priority with the four airside facility alternatives is to keep the area immediately surrounding the runway clear, per regulations for the Runway Object Free Area and Runway Safety Area related to safety.
Two of the options involve moving Hubbard Highway, which runs along the airport, to remove it from the ROFA. The other two options involve moving the runway eastward, which would keep the ROFA on the current aviation department property but would reduce developable area for hangar space.
While an additional alternative exists where no changes are made to the airport, FAA lead planner Tim House said this option serves more as a placeholder to compare with the other alternatives and would not be approved by the FAA. At an advisory committee meeting on Tuesday, June 11, a presentation noted that the proposed alternatives address certain conditions that do not currently meet FAA standards.
Documents show three other alternatives that were proposed in drafts to the advisory committee were ruled out by the FAA because they were geared for the standards of a B-2 designated airport, while Miller said at the June 11 meeting that the current Aurora Airport operations meet FAA qualifications for C-2 airport. Some were concerned about cutting these alternatives.
House said the C-2 designation relates to the speed in which an aircraft comes to the airport, rated on an A through D scale, as well as the size of the aircraft, on a scale of one through five. He said once the airport has over 500 operations that meet a “C” speed and “two” size, the airport is required to meet safety standards for that category of planes.
Wilsonville officials and some others have long opposed a runway expansion, with concerns that it could bring more and larger planes to the airport and lead to increases in noise and pollution. City Councilor Joann Linville, who represents the city on the aviation department advisory committee, said Wilsonville is “very concerned” about any kind of airport expansion, noting that the city hears concerns from residents across Wilsonville neighborhoods.
“We’re gonna stay in the process; we’re going to stay engaged and I’m going to continue to represent the concerns of our citizens and what we think is in the best interest of our community,” Linville said.
Linville and Ben Williams from Friends of French Prairie, a group representing those who live and farm in the French Prairie area, shared concerns over data on aircraft operations.
At a previous advisory committee meeting David Miller, lead airport planner with Century West Engineering, said the forecast shows a 0.9% increase in aircraft operations, or take offs and landings, a year. It also shows a 1.3% increase in flights by based aircraft per year, which the glossary defines as aircraft permanently stationed at the airport. Documents show that population estimates are among the sources used for the forecast.
When asked by Linville at the June 11 meeting why operations data weren’t used in the forecast, Miller said a more detailed discussion of that question could take place at the next advisory committee meeting on July 30. But, he said there was a limited duration of data available from the control tower that opened in 2015. Miller said there was six years of air traffic data available when the forecast was made.
“It’s just not a very long period of time to glean a trend that could be applied forward to 20 years,” Miller said, adding that the COVID-19 pandemic also affected the numbers. “There’s no meaningful trends we can derive from the data.”
One of Williams’ concerns with the runway expansion is potential impacts to surrounding areas, such as Keil Road, which Williams said is frequently used by farmers next to the airport. The road currently sits just south of the runway, which documents list as an existing land use incompatibility. Each alternative proposes realigning the road.
Williams added that airports in the surrounding area, such as the Salem Municipal Airport, have longer runways that could be used by pilots. To this concern, House said that FAA funding is meant to support a “system of airports,” noting that sometimes aircrafts can’t reach other airports due to weather conditions. House also said the decision for what facility to use is up to the pilots.
House encourages those who are concerned with the potential runway extension to join the public meetings and provide input.
Community members can provide input on the alternatives through an online survey until June 23. More information on the airport master plan can be found on the website. Revised alternatives based on feedback will be presented to the advisory committee on July 30.
Most Popular
Comments / 0