Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Airport engineers warn apron and taxiway changes for larger jets will require substantial planning and funds
Summary
Engineers outlined multiple alternatives to accommodate larger Group 3 aircraft—widening taxiways and building new apron lanes—and recommended a refreshed master plan (est. $25,000–$50,000) to avoid incurring non-FAA-eligible costs; they also described an electrical issue affecting lift-station pumps and a low-cost transformer fix.
Engineering staff told the Hamilton County Airport Authority that accommodating larger (Group 3) aircraft will require more than a simple taxiway widening and could force relocation of existing tie-downs and additional infrastructure work.
The presenter said options include widening Taxiway A2 or building a larger apron and new taxi lanes; both approaches would push against the limits of the current terminal-area master plan and could become costly. “The more we talked about this ... you really do need to do some real airport planning,” the presenter said, recommending a new master-plan study. The planner estimated a baseline study could be done for about $50,000 or for a reduced-scope effort around $25,000 that would make more assumptions.
Engineering also discussed the taxiway-extension construction and a persistent pump problem tied to an electrical-provider change. Staff said the site had been switched from Duke Energy to REMC and that REMC’s delivered voltage is lower; technicians proposed a small buck-boost transformer (estimated ~$5,000) to raise local voltage to the pumps rather than the previously quoted $20,000 troubleshooting option. “It’s really REMC’s problem,” the presenter said, but a local transformer would restore the lift-station pump torque and restore operation quickly.
The presenter warned that undertaking major apron/taxiway work now risks paying more out-of-pocket costs that may not be FAA-eligible, whereas some work could be eligible if delayed for two to three years. Board members discussed short-term mitigation versus longer-term planning and asked for clearer cost estimates and staging options.
Why it matters: Shifts to accommodate larger aircraft change safety clearances, pavement design and drainage, and can trigger non-FAA-eligible local costs; the board must weigh near-term demand against long-term planning and potential funding eligibility.
Next steps: Staff proposed to scope a master-plan update and to obtain a formal quote for the buck-boost transformer; the board did not approve a moratorium on development but discussed a 2–3 month planning sprint if the board chooses to proceed.
