Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Runway Feasibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Feasibility study finds crosswind‑runway extension and EMAS costly, limited benefit
Summary
An ESA planning update showed a maximum pavement extension would yield only modest takeoff improvements while EMAS beds would be substantially more expensive; board consensus was that neither option is a near‑term priority.
The Naples Airport Authority received a high‑level feasibility briefing from ESA on potential ways to increase capability on the crosswind runway (Runway 14/32), and commissioners raised safety, operational and land‑use limits.
Joe Halisky, senior aviation planner with ESA, summarized existing declared distances and displaced thresholds and noted the crosswind runway’s landing length would remain limited by displaced thresholds even with pavement added. ESA presented two concepts that avoid expanding airport acreage: a "maximum allowable" pavement extension within the current footprint, and the installation of engineered materials arresting systems (EMAS) on both runway ends to reduce runway safety‑area setbacks. The consultant estimated a planning‑level construction cost of roughly $11 million for the pavement extension option and about $24.5 million for the EMAS option (2025 dollars, escalated estimates).
Halisky emphasized that neither option would produce the same operational capability as the primary runway; prevailing winds, aircraft balanced‑field lengths and runway‑visibility‑zone constraints limit meaningful jet use of the crosswind runway. Commissioners warned that many peer airports used longer runways (around 8,000 feet) and that balanced‑field lengths for several large fleet types exceed the crosswind runway even after extension, reducing the practical benefit for the jet traffic that drives congestion.
Board members also noted conservation easements and the Gordon River Greenway adjacent to the runway make property acquisition and major footprint changes politically and legally difficult. Given the marginal operational benefit, the board signaled consensus to deprioritize a full extension or EMAS installation as a near‑term capital project.
No formal action to authorize design or funding for either option was taken; staff will include the study in the public FAQ materials and will continue coordinating with ESA and FAA on the airport layout plan as needed.
