Laserfiche WebLink
Figure 7 -4 illustrates a preliminary centerline profile of <br />the proposed runway. It appears that cut and fill could be <br />fairly well balanced since soils are predominantly sand and <br />sandy gravel. <br />Approach clearances over the railroad to the south and <br />relocated CSAH 116 to the north meet or exceed Part 77 <br />criteria. <br />7.5 <br />Alternative C <br />The development concept for Alternative C (Figure 7 -5) was <br />based on ultimately mitigating the impacts to residential <br />development north of the airport, avoiding relocation of <br />CSAH 116 while providing adequate approach clearances, and <br />providing greater wind coverage. <br />This alternative orients the primary runway in an east -west <br />(9 -27) direction. The primary runway is shifted approxi- <br />mately 700' north of the existing 9 -27 strip and is also <br />shifted to the west to provide approach clearance over CSAH <br />116 to the east. Orientation of the primary runway to the <br />east -west direction results in a significant loss of wind <br />coverage, 81.88 at 10.5 knots versus 90.38 coverage with a <br />16 -34 orientation. A crosswind Runway 16 -34 could provide <br />the additional wind coverage achieving a combined coverage <br />of 99.18. <br />The primary runway initially could be developed as 3500' in <br />length and has potential to ultimately be developed to <br />General Utility runway length standards (between 3700' and <br />4000' in length). Neither of these capabilities are pro- <br />vided by Alternatives A and B. Runway 16 -34, as the <br />crosswind runway, would be developed at 808 of the primary <br />runway length resulting in a 2800' runway. The 2800' runway <br />would be situated on the existing 16 -34 alignment and <br />shifted approximately 800' to the north. Adequate design <br />approach clearances would be achieved over the railroad and <br />CSAH 116 without relocation. <br />This development concept, however, would require that County <br />Road 56 be closed from Highway 10, 52, and 169 to CSAH 116. <br />North -south vehicular traffic would then be diverted to CSAH <br />116. Additional land would have to be acquired under this <br />concept. However, fewer homes would be impacted than with <br />Alternatives A and B. <br />7 -6 <br />