Buckeye unveils master plan recommending runway extension, crosswind runway and interim tower options

Scott Gray, Aviation Director for the City of Buckeye, and Charlie McDermott, representing engineering firm Dibble, presented the Buckeye Municipal Airport Master Plan at a public meeting Wednesday, showing recommended infrastructure to serve forecasted growth in aircraft and operations.

The plan recommends extending the primary runway 1,800 feet to the north to a total length of about 7,300 feet, adding a future crosswind runway aligned roughly 10–2–8, and preserving a larger ultimate airport footprint that could support up to a 10,000- to 10,500-foot runway in the long range. City and consultant speakers said the plan also anticipates land acquisition near the airport and that Yuma Road will need relocation, tunneling or closure if the runway extension proceeds.

The master plan is a 20-year study that uses an FAA‑approved demand forecast and an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) as its core deliverables. Gray said the City has resubmitted its forecast to the Federal Aviation Administration and that the plan’s alternatives phase—where configurations are evaluated against cost, environmental impacts and operational safety—is now at its midpoint.

The consultants presented numerical forecasts and design targets. The airport currently has about 79 based aircraft and roughly 22,000 annual operations; the study forecasts about 89 based aircraft and as many as 66,000 annual operations over the planning period. Those are forecasts, McDermott said, and “reality is always somewhere in between what we forecast and in today’s activity.”

On runway alternatives, the recommended option places the 1,800-foot extension entirely on the north end of the existing primary runway to reach 7,300 feet. For crosswind coverage, the study evaluated widening the existing runway and multiple crosswind alignments; the team selected an alternative labeled “4c” at a 10–2–8 alignment as the recommended location. Initial crosswind runway length is shown at 6,000 feet in the short term, with the plan preserving space to extend a crosswind runway to 10,000 feet or beyond in later phases so it could ultimately serve as a primary runway.

Gray and McDermott emphasized that FAA approvals will govern what can be funded and built. McDermott said two elements that require FAA concurrence are the aviation demand forecast and the Airport Layout Plan. The presenters also noted that an environmental review under NEPA is required before construction; McDermott estimated a typical environmental process could take about two years to reach a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), followed by design and construction steps that could make four years an optimistic schedule for completing the runway extension.

Traffic‑engineering and right‑of‑way issues surfaced in discussion. The plan shows the need either to relocate Yuma Road, construct a temporary loop, tunnel the road, or close it; city staff said traffic engineering is coordinating alternatives and that other roadway projects in the area (interchange and connector alignments) could affect the final solution.

Air traffic control and operations came up repeatedly. Gray announced the city was officially accepted into the FAA’s Federal Contract Tower Program after the FAA performed a cost‑benefit analysis. The FAA’s letter gives the city seven years to build a permanent tower that the program will staff; Gray said the city views that timeline as too long given current and forecasted activity, and officials are exploring temporary or semi‑permanent tower solutions while the long‑term location and siting studies proceed. McDermott and Gray described the program’s cost‑benefit score for Buckeye as “almost a 2,” noting a 1.0 is the standard qualification threshold.

On navigation procedures, Gray said the airport has two RNAV (GPS) instrument approaches designed—one for each runway end—and that surface and lighting improvements are under way to allow an FAA flight check this summer and publication of the approaches in March of next year. Officials said instrument approaches should improve reliability for corporate and business operators in marginal weather.

Noise and land‑use compatibility will be analyzed in follow‑up studies. The presenters described future noise contour analysis and referenced the potential for a Part 150 noise compatibility study to guide zoning and land‑use protection around the airport before residential development encroaches.

Speakers stressed that some uses—such as formal planning for military operations—cannot be directly planned for in an FAA master plan, though the airport team said they are in conversation with military units, potential fixed‑base operators, flight schools and cargo interests. Officials cautioned that commercial passenger service depends on airline economics and population support, not only local facilities.

The meeting was the second public engagement event; boards and materials will remain available on the city website, and city staff said they will accept follow‑up emails and provide additional detail. Gray encouraged attendees to review the display boards and to contact staff with questions.

Ending: City staff and the consultant said they will continue the public engagement program, refine alternatives based on feedback and the FAA’s review, and begin follow‑on planning such as an airport‑area land‑use study to protect the airport from incompatible development.