Region of Waterloo International Airport - YKF

[nms]

Taking a quick look at the site using Google Maps, it looks like the absolute limit for extending the two runways would be:
- about 2600m for 14-32 since Kossuth Road is to the south and Fountain St (and the Nedlaw roofing property) are to the north. It's possible that Kossuth Rd could be bent to the south.
- at most 2900m for 08-26 since Fountain Street is to the west and Shantz Station Road is to the east.

Both of these maximum length estimates do not account for any topography issues that might limit the extensions. While ground falling away from the end might be easier to fix, if the ground rises beyond the end of the runway, particularly beyond the end of the airport property, that could be more challenging to change. There is also a creek to the south of 14-32

[tomh009]

Waterloo is an incredibly busy general aviation airport and has a large flight school and GA presence.  It has only 1 runway that can service the passenger jets at 7,000’.  Which means less resiliency for difficult weather and winds.

Is it correct to assume that the airport has the space (and flight paths) for extending the runways, and it's just the runway construction cost? That cost should be relatively low as compared to, for example, expanding the passenger terminal.

[SammyOES]

I can’t remember the exact details since best I can tell the project has just been paused for a few years. I believe they have the necessary land.

I don’t have a great sense of “flight path” changes. Nothing in terms of airspace (the Waterloo control zone is 5NM and wouldn’t change) but I assume all 4 runways would need updated and potentially new infrastructure for landing systems.

There are a couple of other complications too.

It involves noise and traffic changes. Lots of people get upset with that. Although they claim there isn’t much of a noise change. Not sure how realistic that is if you start landing bigger planes on each runway.

I believe it involves building in some sensitive areas like watersheds.

And it involves rerouting or doing something with Shantz Station road. Which might or might not be significant.

And then there is all the accompanying work like taxiways, drainage, fencing, maintenance paths, etc.

[ZEBuilder]

Waterloo is an incredibly busy general aviation airport and has a large flight school and GA presence.  It has only 1 runway that can service the passenger jets at 7,000’.  Which means less resiliency for difficult weather and winds.

Is it correct to assume that the airport has the space (and flight paths) for extending the runways, and it's just the runway construction cost? That cost should be relatively low as compared to, for example, expanding the passenger terminal.

Like SammyOES said they've paused the project and are planning on starting it back up. From my understanding the airport does not have all the land, unless they've bought more recently. Runway 14-32 will be extended from 4100 feet to 7000 feet. They have all the land for the physical runway on the Kossuth side to do this but they don't have the land for the approach lighting, likewise on the west side of the airport they have none of the land (from my knowledge). Runway 08-26 will be extended to the north from 7002 feet to 8737 feet with Shantz Station requiring a relocation or tunnel to make room for the runway blast pad, however they own all the land to allow for this.

Flight paths won't need to be changed at all when they extend the runways as it's being protected through the current AZR update and all the related instrumentation upgrades. The Region is also protecting for a future 3rd runway which will be parallel to Runway 14-32 at the north side. they don't currently own any land for it but through the AZR update it will prevent any substantial development from occurring in the flight path.

In terms of cost it really depends on what the soil conditions are in the extension areas. If it's adequate for the loading from an aircraft it won't be absurdly expensive compared to a terminal expansion but if the soil isn't adequate the costs can escalate extremely quick and likely surpass that of a small terminal expansion. The 08-26 extension will also be costly due to the required Shantz Station reconfiguration.

Here's the AZR map which shows the height restrictions for the flight path: YKF AZR

Here's the maps for the runway extensions and the protected third runway:
   
   
   

[SammyOES]

The Region is also protecting for a future 3rd runway which will be parallel to Runway 14-32 at the north side. they don't currently own any land for it but through the AZR update it will prevent any substantial development from occurring in the flight path.

…

Here's the maps for the runway extensions and the protected third runway:

I’d forgotten about the plan for the third runway.  I guess the idea is that you’d need it in order to get more length in the 14-32 directions?  The length then being important for giving larger planes more options with poor wind/weather conditions. 

Otherwise it seems kind of silly.  I suppose it could increase GA operations - but only in situations where the wind cooperates and you can actually use both runways.  GA (particular students at a flight school) have much stricter crosswind requirements so there would be lots of times you’re limited to one runway anyway.

My gut feeling is that a third runway is on par with the Pickering airport plans.  Never going to happen but maybe still worth some minimum restrictions in the area to protect for the remote possibility.

Also, those maps are unnecessarily oriented weirdly.  Confused me thoroughly for a few seconds.

[plam]

On a different note, I took the bus to YKF again yesterday (note: 1A doesn't have power plugs but e.g. 1F does). Then I took GRT FlexBus on-demand shuttle to the train station (and walked home). It's a convenient service to take if you happen to be "flying" at the (quite restricted) hours that it operates. These services are pretty expensive to run, I guess, but less than a scheduled bus run.

[ZEBuilder]

I’d forgotten about the plan for the third runway.  I guess the idea is that you’d need it in order to get more length in the 14-32 directions?  The length then being important for giving larger planes more options with poor wind/weather conditions. 

Otherwise it seems kind of silly.  I suppose it could increase GA operations - but only in situations where the wind cooperates and you can actually use both runways.  GA (particular students at a flight school) have much stricter crosswind requirements so there would be lots of times you’re limited to one runway anyway.

My gut feeling is that a third runway is on par with the Pickering airport plans.  Never going to happen but maybe still worth some minimum restrictions in the area to protect for the remote possibility.

Also, those maps are unnecessarily oriented weirdly.  Confused me thoroughly for a few seconds.

The third runway does add some resiliency to the system, I doubt we'd every be busy enough to justify parallel take off and landings but weirder things have happened. I'd have to check the length thats planned but it's certainly possible for the third runway to be longer to provide that second option for larger aircraft. 

The extension of 14-32 will allow for larger aircrafts to land (the same size as the current 08-26 allows). If we want to provide a second option for larger aircrafts that could land on the extended 08-26 we'd either need to extend 14-32 again, which is possible but not exactly the simplest, or we build the parallel 14-32 runway (3rd runway).

Another thing is if we have enough air travel at some point in the future it is useful for another runway in the event something happens at the intersection of runways, let's say 14-32R and 08-26 (assuming we're looking from the west) so the third runway in this case would be 14-32L which would still allow for restricted operations to occur at the airport while the 14-32R and 08-26 runways are closed which is always beneficial.

You wouldn't be able to increase GA operations in terms of flying in different wind conditions since the third runway would be parallel to the existing 14-32, but it would allow for more capacity. The third runway could be built at a different angle but that's a bad idea for a bunch of reasons.