Arlington Municipal Airport Development Plan Arlington Airport Development Plan | Page 169
to pursue positive control over this property through an easement. Farther north, Southeast Green
Oaks Boulevard would also remain in the RPZ.
Alternative 2 would necessitate changes to the MALSR but not to the extent as in Alternative 1. Since
the MALSR light‐lanes are situated at 200‐foot increments, the 200‐foot displaced threshold would re‐
quire shifting the light‐lanes accordingly but not involve a total relocation of the MALSR as in the first
alternative. The initial light‐lane would need to be built into the pavement as it would begin at the
physical end of runway pavement.
In this alternative, the glide slope antenna may be allowed to remain in its current location since it
would be situated approximately 800 feet from the displaced threshold. The FAA would need to make
a determination of its suitability at 800 feet from threshold. As a result, the use of Taxiway G on the
west side of the Airport could continue.
Runway 34 Approach RPZ – Alternative 3
Alternative 3 depicted at the bottom of Exhibit 4D calls for the acquisition of approximately 2.40 acres
of land in the southwest corner of the approach RPZ that currently include the residential land uses. In
doing so, the Airport could gain positive control over the property and remove the homes from within
the RPZ. The RPZ would continue in its existing location, allowing for the airfield configuration to re‐
main in its current condition. Approximately 1.55 acres of land in the southeast portion of the RPZ
would remain uncontrolled. It would be desirable for the City to pursue positive control over this
property through an easement if fee acquisition is not possible or practical.
While this alternative would allow for the full 6,080 feet of length for aircraft landing on Runway 34,
the cost associated with removing and relocating residences outside the existing RPZ would be sub‐
stantial. Further coordination would be needed with the FAA and TxDOT to determine the likelihood
of this alternative.
Runway 34 Approach RPZ Summary
It is evident from this evaluation that Arlington Municipal Airport cannot fully meet the Runway 34 ap‐
proach RPZ standards without substantial and costly improvements. In Alternative 1, the relocation of
the RPZ onto airport property would not be feasible as the decrease in landing distance on Runway 34
would render it unusable by existing aviation demand, particularly turbine aircraft. Furthermore, the
relocation of the MALSR and glide slope antenna would prove very costly and a portion of Taxiway G
on the west side of the runway would have to be closed, which dismisses a significant investment
made at the Airport in recent years. As a result, it is not practicable for the Airport to meet RPZ stand‐
ards as depicted in Alternative 1 and this alternative will not be pursued.
Chapter Four - 23