modified final project report for development...

GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

(GNIDA)

MODIFIED FINAL PROJECT REPORT FOR

DEVELOPMENT OF HELIPORT AT

GREATER NOIDA

MAY 2015

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.rites.com/

Development of Heliport at Greater NOIDA, (U.P.)

Final DPR i

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................1

1.1 Study Objectives ...............................................................................................................1 1.2 Field Study ........................................................................................................................2

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES .....................................................................................................5 2.1 Role of the Heliport ..........................................................................................................5

3. PLANNING CRITERIA .......................................................................................................6 3.1 Planning Parameters..........................................................................................................6 3.2 Design Helicopter .............................................................................................................6

3.3 Performance Class 1 operations ........................................................................................8 3.4 Taxiing Procedures ...........................................................................................................9 3.5 Parking Apron ...................................................................................................................9 3.6 Passenger Terminal .........................................................................................................10

3.7 Fueling ............................................................................................................................10 3.8 Maintenance ....................................................................................................................11

3.9 Navigational Aids ...........................................................................................................11 4. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS ..........................................................................................13

4.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................13 4.2 Identified Facility Requirements.....................................................................................13

4.2.1 Airfield .....................................................................................................................13

4.2.2 Touchdown and Liftoff (TLOF) area 29/01/2014 ...................................................13 4.2.3 Final approach and take-off (FATO) area ...............................................................14

4.2.4 Safety Area...............................................................................................................15 4.2.5 Taxiway system .......................................................................................................16

4.3 Parking Apron .................................................................................................................16

4.4 Maintenance Facilities ....................................................................................................17

4.5 Passenger Terminal Complex .........................................................................................17

4.6 Ground Access and Parking ............................................................................................18 4.7 Support Facilities ............................................................................................................18

4.7.1 ATC building ...........................................................................................................18 4.7.2 Fuel system ..............................................................................................................19 4.7.3 Navigational Aids ....................................................................................................19

4.8 Crash Fire Rescue Facilities............................................................................................19 5. SITE EVALUATION .........................................................................................................21

5.1 Site Location ...................................................................................................................21 5.1.1 Soil Investigations ....................................................................................................21 5.2 Meteorology of the Area .................................................................................................22

5.3 Orientation ......................................................................................................................22 5.4 Airside Facility Requirements for VFR & IFR operations .............................................22

5.5 Obstacle Limitation Surfaces ..........................................................................................23 5.5.1 Annexure 1 ...............................................................................................................25

5.5.2 Obstructions in Approach funnel .............................................................................26 5.6 Existing and Proposed Roads around the Heliport .........................................................26 5.7 Presence of IGI Airport Control Zone ............................................................................26

6. TRAFFIC DEMAND FORECAST ....................................................................................27 6.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................27 6.2 Approach and Methodology ...........................................................................................28


Final DPR ii

6.3 Traffic and Travel Characteristics ..................................................................................29 6.3.1.1 Primary Traffic and Travel Surveys .....................................................................29 6.3.1.2 The data collected and analyzed to assess the present traffic and travel

characteristics and movement pattern. ................................................................................30

6.4 Classified Traffic Volume Count ....................................................................................30 6.4.1 The location of classified traffic counts ...................................................................30 6.4.2 Traffic Volume (Average Daily Traffic – 16hrs) ....................................................30

6.5 Boarding & Alighting Counts .........................................................................................30 6.6 Willingness to Shift Survey ............................................................................................31

6.6.1 Willingness Characteristics ......................................................................................31 6.7 Origin and Destination Survey........................................................................................32 6.8 Helicopter Operator Survey ............................................................................................34 6.9 Traffic Estimates .............................................................................................................35

6.10 Growth Rates ................................................................................................................37 6.11 Traffic Projections ........................................................................................................38

7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN....................................................................................................41 7.1 Development Plan / Master Plan.....................................................................................41

8. DESIGN OF PAVEMENT .................................................................................................43 8.1 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................45

9. COST ESTIMATE..............................................................................................................46

10. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR GREATER NOIDA HELIPORT ........................48 10.1 Objectives of EIA Study ...............................................................................................48

10.2 Legal Provisions for Environment related to Infrastructure Projects ...........................48 10.3 Environmental Clearance for Development Projects ....................................................50 10.4 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act .........................................................51

10.5 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act .............................................................53

10.6 Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules ..........................................................54

10.7 Environmental Baseline Data .......................................................................................54 10.8 Physiography.................................................................................................................55

10.9 Analysis of Alternatives ................................................................................................58 10.10 Impacts Assessment ....................................................................................................63

10.10.1 Impacts on Land Environment .............................................................................63

10.10.2 Impact on Water Environment .............................................................................63 10.10.3 Impacts on Air Environment ................................................................................63 10.10.4 Impact on Noise Environment .............................................................................64 10.10.5 General Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................66 10.10.6 Impacts on Biological Environment ....................................................................66

10.10.7 Socio- Economic Impacts ....................................................................................67 10.11 Positive Impacts ..........................................................................................................67

ANNEXURE 1........................................................................................................................68 ANNEXURE 2........................................................................................................................72

ANNEXURE 3........................................................................................................................76 11. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................80

11.1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................80 11.2. Methodology .............................................................................................................80 11.3. Capital Cost Estimates ..............................................................................................80 11.4. Operation & Maintenance Cost Estimates................................................................81


Final DPR iii

11.4.1 Land Lease Charges .............................................................................................81 11.4.2 Repair & Maintenance ........................................................................................82 11.4.3 Operating Costs ...................................................................................................82 11.4.4 Other Costs..........................................................................................................82

11.5. Revenue Estimates ....................................................................................................83 11.5.1. Flight Landing Charges .....................................................................................83 11.5.2. Passenger Fees...................................................................................................83 11.5.3. Aircraft Parking Charges ...................................................................................84 11.5.4. Hanger Charges .................................................................................................84

11.5.5. Crew Retiring Rooms ........................................................................................84 11.5.6. Vehicle Parking Charges ...................................................................................84 11.5.7. Commercial Activities.......................................................................................84

11.6. Other Financing Parameters .....................................................................................85

11.6.1. CAPEX Phasing: ...............................................................................................85 11.6.2. Inflation: ............................................................................................................85

11.6.3. Other Financing Parameters ..............................................................................85 11.7. Investment Analysis .................................................................................................88

11.8. Capital Expenditure Support ....................................................................................88 11.9. User Development Fees ............................................................................................89 11.10. Conclusion ................................................................................................................91

12. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSIONS .......................................................92 12.1 General ..........................................................................................................................92

12.2 Project Environment .....................................................................................................92 12.3 Contractual Practice ......................................................................................................92

12.3.1 Contract packaging ................................................................................................92

12.3.2 Choice of Bid process ............................................................................................92

12.4 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................94

13. DRAWINGS ....................................................................................................................96 13.1 Layout Plan ...................................................................................................................96

13.2 Obstacle Limitation Plan...............................................................................................97 13.3 Terminal Building Plan .................................................................................................98 13.4 ATC Tower Plan ..........................................................................................................99

13.5 Fire Station Plan ..........................................................................................................100


Final DPR 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Objectives

Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA), intends to develop a heliport for the operations at Greater NOIDA, (UP), with the primary objective of providing independent helicopter operations from Greater NOIDA to Delhi , Lucknow, Agra, Jaipur and other parts of the country . Accordingly, three sites were selected by GNIDA for setting up of heliport. Site I- Knowledge Park - I I , Greater NOIDA opposite Galgotia Institute. Site I I- Opposite the site 1 on NOIDA-Greater NOIDA highway and Site I II- Opposite Gautam Budh University at Greater NOIDA A site evaluation study was carr ied out by RITES Ltd; for all three sites and following is brought out: Site I had several obstructions in terms of existing structures, elevated proposed Metro l ine and environmental concerns. Site II a lso had several obstructions in terms of existing structures and proposed HT l ine and environmental concerns. Site I II was found to be better than site I and II as it had very few exist ing structures in the vicinity of heliport and would affect environment the least. A comparative statement of all the three sites is placed in chapter 10. As per this report, the site opposite Gautam Budh University , Greater NOIDA, is considered to be most favorable amongst the three sites selected by GNIDA for preparation of DPR for the development of proposed heliport. RITES Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprise), has been appointed by GNIDA, as technical consultant, for preparing a Detailed Project Report for development of the heliport at Greater NOIDA, (UP) . The scope of work of this study is as under: Traffic Surveys and demand estimation,

Topographic survey of the selected site,


Final DPR 2

Detailed obstruct ion survey in approach areas and surrounding air space, analysis and review of obstacle l imitat ion surfaces,

Soil Investigations,

Identif icat ion and assessment of infrastructural services needed,

Preparation of master plan showing FATO, TLOF, terminal building, hangar, approach road, car parking, security fencing, boundary wall and drainage,

Preliminary design of helipad pavements and conceptual plans for the building works,

Identif icat ion of Air Traffic Control, Communication, Navigational and Visual Aids/ Equipments requirements,

Identif icat ion of Crash Fire Rescue system requirements,

Power and water supply requirements,

Refueling faci l ity,

Preparation of Prel iminary Cost Estimates for development of the facil it ies,

Financial Appraisal

Assistance in drafting of applications for DGCA/MOD/MOEF/AAI and local authorities as per requirement.

The objective of the study is to evaluate the Technical Feasibil ity and preparat ion of Detailed Project Report fo r development of a Heliport at Greater NOIDA, (UP).The study, as documented in this report, assesses the physical and operational characteristics of commercial helicopter operations in India, identifies the facility requirements of heliport along with its estimated cost . The coverage of the study also includes traffic forecast, Environmental Impact Assessment, Project Appraisal and issues concerning Implementation of Project. This Draft report is not intended to provide a detailed hel iport design, but to provide with the init ial f indings for early decision making purposes.

1.2 Field Study

The heliport site is located along Yamuna Express way from Greater NOIDA to Agra opposite Gautam Bugh Un iversity in Greater NOIDA, having an area of 15.5 Acres. The site is situated at co-ordinates of 28° 27’ 17.77”N and 77° 29’ 43.48” E with an elevat ion of 195.0 m above mean sea level and the average gradient of 0.2 m per km. The terrain of the area is generally plain with a gradual slope varying between 0.2 -0.1 per cent from north-east to south-west. The area is f lat and low lying.s mostly an agricultural area.


Final DPR 3

Figure 1.1: Location of Heliport

The site is surrounded by Gautam Budh University in the East and residential f lats in the West. Kasna Vil lage is s ituated in the North Direction and Yamuna Express way is in South Direction. A team of Engineers from RITES visited the site and carried out studies / surveys / investigations during October 2014. The input information gathered during the f ield study is discussed in subsequent paragraphs. The report comprises of the following:

Project Object ives

Evaluation of site features

Identif icat ion of Planning parameters

Establishment of Facil ity Requirements

Development Plan

Pavement Design

Preliminary Cost estimates

Financial Appraisal


Final DPR 4

Project Objectives : The init ial step involved discussions with the GNIDA to identify objectives for the project, including the definit ion of the role of the heliport faci l ity, and number of operators to be accommodated.

Evaluation of site features: This step involved evaluation of the site and surrounding features to accommodate the facil ity requirements .

Identification of Planning Parameters: The planning cr iteria for the Heliport were identif ied through input from GNIDA representatives and documentation contained in Civil Aviation Requirements by DGCA and ICAO .

Establishment of Facility Requirements: This step involved incorporating planning cr iteria in accordance with the project objectives and requirement.

Development Plan: Based on the planning parameters, faci l ity requirements and site evaluation, the options available for development of the heliport are discussed and suitable option recommended.

Design: Design of the helicopter movement area proposed.

Cost Estimate: An indicative Cost Estimate of the development works proposed.

Financial Appraisal: Financial appraisal of the proposed heliport.

The study documents these steps in the following sections .

*****


Final DPR 5

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

2.1 Role of the Heliport

The primary objective of the proposed Hel iport is to provide an independent facil ity for Helicopter Operations in Greater NOIDA primarily to faci l itate passengers coming from IGI Airport, New Delhi to Greater NOIDA and for further air travel to various places such as Agra, Mathura, Jaipur, Lucknow etc . The Heliport would provide a locat ion for the voluntary basing of hel icopter operators providing commercial services from Greater NOIDA. The development of the Heliport is also intended to support the tourism, medical , security and emergency services. The heliport would be developed as VFR compliant faci l ity . The GNIDA wil l provide basic infrastructural faci l it ies such as a landing space and parking of helicopters, refueling yard, terminal bui lding with facil it ies of check -in, security checking, baggage claim and ATC. Provision of hangars for maintenance of helicopters GNIDA wil l charge applicable fee to the operators for util iz ing the services. GNIDA will arrange for security personnel and heliport managerial staff and ATC facil it ies.

*****


Final DPR 6

3. PLANNING CRITERIA

3.1 Planning Parameters

The purpose of this section is to identify the planning criteria for the proposed heliport which will guide the development of generalized facil ity requirements for the Heliport. Planning criteria is governed by the type of helicopter operation proposed such as Performance Class, VFR or IFR operations and the dimensions of the helicopters intended to serve the heliport. The requirements for different type of operations are provided by Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) of DGCA and ICAO.

The following parameters have been finalized :

The heliport will be planned to accommodate the largest of f leet , presently in use for commercial operations in India .

The heliport is intended to be operated by helicopters in Performance Class 1

The heliport will be planned for VFR operations.

3.2 Design Helicopter

Selection of design helicopter is the most important parameter, which is required to be identif ied, before planning the facil it ies at the heliport. The crit icality of the helicopter in terms of its weight and size is the major criteria for selection of design helicopter from the available f leet. The helicopter ground facil it ies and associated f l ight paths need to be designed with reference to a design helicopter . When designing a heliport, the crit ical design helicopter, having the largest set of dimensions and the greatest maximum take-off mass (MTOM) the heliport is intended to serve, would need to be considered. The range of helicopter types anticipated to use the Heliport includes the current f leet of aircraft operated by various operators . The faci l ity also needs to be suitable for use by alternate helicopter types in current service with other agencies and emergency services and a s well as the range of helicopter types that could be used in the longer term future. The l ist of helicopters presently in use is given in Table – 3.1.


Final DPR 7

Table – 3.1: List of Helicopters with Non -Scheduled Operators in India

Helicopter Type Seat Capacity Number of Helicopters

Augusta 109 C 7 5

Augusta 109 S 6 4

Augusta 109 E 5 7

Augusta A119 7

Augusta 119 K 8 1

Augusta AW 139 15 8

AS355N (H) 5 1

AS 350B3 5 10

Alloutte II I Helicopter 316B

6 1

BELL 206B3 5 6

BELL 206L3 6 1

BELL 206L4 6 4

BELL 212 13 2

BELL 407 5 25

BELL 412 13 20

BELL 429 6 3

BELL 222 UT 6

BELL 230 7

BELL 430 5 1

Chetak 5 3

Dhruv ALH 8 1

Dauphin 2 13 17

Dauphin AS365N3 13 20

EC120B 5

Eurocopter EC 130B4 5

EC135P2+ 6 3

EC 155B1 12 3

Enstrom 480B 4 2

Ecurei l AS355 F-1 5 3

Ecurei l 350 B3 6 4

Hil ler UH 012E 2 2

MBB BK 117 C2 (EC145) 8

MD900 7 1

MI-172 26 4

Robinson R44 3 1

R44 Raven I I 3 1

Sikorsky S76C 6 4

SA 315B Lama 4 1


Final DPR 8

3%

37%

60%

26

13

<13

Helicopter Type Seat Capacity Number of Helicopters

SA 316B Chetak 6

Schweizer 300C 2 1

Schweizer 300SP 3 1

Total 171 Sou rce: L IST O F NO N-SCHEDUL ED OPERATO R’S PERMIT HOL DERS (AS O N 05.12.2013)

Analysis of the l ist of helicopters presented in Table - 3.1 above reveals that MI-172 with maximum seating capacity of 26 is the heaviest aircraft presently in use. But it constitutes only 2% of the total helicopters. Helicopters with seat ing capacity of 13 to 15 constitute 39%, the helicopters predominantly in use being Bel l 412, Augusta AW 139 and Dauphin. About 60% of the total helicopters are below 13 seats, the predominant being Bell 407. Out of the helicopters predominantly in use, MI -172 is the heaviest having the largest helicopter dimensions. Therefore it would be ideal to plan the facil it ies to accommodate MI-172, to provide the separation distances for planning the airside facil it ies. The features related to planning & design of facil it ies of the important helicopters in operation is given below:

Table – 3.2: Helicopter Features

Helicopter Rotor Dia Length (m)

Height (m)

Tread (m)

Max. gross weight (kg)

Mi-172 21.29 25.35 5.54 4.51 13000

Bell 412 14.02 17.07 4.32 2.59 5397

Dauphin AS 365

11.94 13.68 3.52 1.90 4250

Bell 407 10.67 12.62 3.10 2.47 2268

3.3 Performance Class 1 operations

Performance Class 1 operations are those with performance such that, in the event of failure of the crit ical power -unit , the rotorcraft is able to land within the rejected take-off distance available or safely continue the f l ight to an appropriate landing area, depending on when the fai lure occur. Helicopters operat ing in Performance Class 1 (PC1) are able to continue fl ight or land at a hel ipad with one engine inoperative (OEI) and represent the highest


Final DPR 9

level of operat ional safety. PC1 fl ights require a suitable combination of parameters including wind speed and direction, air temperature and pressure, and aircraft operating weight. In addition, a suitably sized helipad is essential to support PC1 fl ights.

In the event that any of the required criteria for PC1 fl ights cannot be met, the aircraft operates in Performance Class 2. PC2 aircraft have a s imilar OEI accountabil ity except for the early stages after l iftoff and the f inal stages of

the approach to land during which a forced landing may be required in the OEI situation and is included in the contingency planning for such f l ights. The design criteria adopted for the Heliport reflect the standards and recommended practices published by ICAO in Annex 14 – Volume II and the ICAO Heliport Design Manual. The ICAO documentation has specif ic appl ication and details of the faci l i ty requirements for Performance Class 1 helicopters. As a member state of ICAO, India adopts the ICAO unless alternate provisions and criteria have been published. India published a C ivil Aviation Requirement (CAR) Publication, which presents guidelines for the establishment of Heliports.

3.4 Taxiing Procedures

Heliports accommodating scheduled commercial activity should provide for the controlled movement of helicopters along obstruction free corridors, or taxiway , from maintenance and parking areas to f inal approach and landing ar ea. The width of the taxiway is based on the width of the main gear span of the design helicopter, and differ if the mode of taxiing is “hover” for s kid equipped helicopters, or “ground” for wheel equipped helicopters. The typical mode of taxi ing at the proposed Heliport will be ground taxiing and air taxiing. The taxiways provide access between the FATO areas and the helicopter parking apron. When t axiing within the apron area, the helicopter uses a maneuvering ais le to reach the parking position centerline. The required width and clearance requirements for the maneuvering ais le are based on taxiway clearances for the largest helicopter to use that a isle.

3.5 Parking Apron

A heliport requires a paved apron for parking helicopters. Each helicopter has a defined parking position with a clear path to the taxi way. This clear path is


Final DPR 10

defined by the centerlines of the parking position and the maneuvering ais le. The size and layout of the parking position are based on the size of the helicopter and the manner in which the helicopter maneuvers in and out of the parking position. The size of the parking position is based on the largest overall dimension of t he design helicopter. The primary methods of leaving a parking position are “taxi -thru,” “turn -around,” or backing-out.” A parking Apron for two helicopters has been planned on the North side of plot. Two hel icopter stands of size 51m x 51m are proposed for MI- 172 (26 Seater) type of helicopter.

3.6 Passenger Terminal

This faci l ity typically includes a reception desk, check-in area, security check, departure hold area for the potential 30-minute passenger dwell t ime, cafeteria, washrooms, apron access points such as a terminal or a gate, and office areas. Generally, operators escort their passengers between the apron access point and the helicopter. This may occur via a shuttle vehicle or via a pedestrian path, depending on the distance to the h elicopter parking positions. Operators prefer to walk the passengers to the helicopter parking positions to minimize operating costs and schedule. For safety reasons, this passenger pathway should be well defined, by striping or a change in material , and should not cross act ive taxi routes, maneuvering ais les or parking position centerlines.

3.7 Fueling

The feasible methods of fueling the hel icopters were identif ied as either by fuel truck, which brings fuel to the helicopter when requested, by providing a storage fuel barrels in a re-fuell ing bay upto which the helicopter should travel for fuell ing or by a hydrant system allowing “hot -fueling,” which allows the fueling of helicopters without turning off power to the main rotor. In this scenario, a fuel dispensing mechanism at the apron would be fed underground from a remote fuel tank. Truck fueling is the current fueling method for helicopters at IGI Airport and is a service provided by a Fixed Base Operator (FBO). Unlike truck fue ling, hot-fueling allows the helicopter rotors to remain in operation during fueling, which shortens the turn time to the next f l ight and reduces wear associated with engine starts. It also removes the potential delay of waiting for the fuel truck to service the


Final DPR 11

aircraft . This method, however, would require more intensive underground infrastructure than truck fueling, which, in turn, would affect init ial construction costs, environmental considerations, and long -term maintenance. Init ial ly at this hel iport, i t is proposed to provide a Re-fuel l ing bay to house the Mini Fuel Test Lab and storage for Refueling Equipment & its Spares. This shed can be init ial ly used to house 20 to 25 Nos, 200 ltr fuel barrels or the re-fueler itself . This bay can be jointly used by various operators for storing of their fuel barrels. In case the traffic increases, the other methods of refueling can be taken up.

3.8 Maintenance

All commercial helicopter operators currently maintain their heli copters with their own maintenance engineers in a dedicated (leased or owned) hangar. Maintenance hangars are used by the tour operators to conduct l ight maintenance of their f leet on a dai ly basis. Heavy maintenance of all commercial helicopters would occur at remote, manufactu rer-approved service stations. Light maintenance procedures for tour operators typically occur daily after tour operations cease, and are often performed during night t ime hours. Maintenance facil it ies would be required to accommodate delivery vehicles, l i ght industr ial equipment, and provide staging and storage of aircraft parts. The maintenance of helicopters requires relocation from parking positions on the apron to the maintenance hangar by placing skids beneath the undercarriage of each helicopter and towing them into the maintenance hangar. Some models of helicopter “fold” their main rotors along the l ine of fuselage, requir ing less clearance for maintenance. Each operator maintenance hangar would be preferred to be directly adjacent to each operator apron. Each maintenance hangar would require a minimum inter ior height clearance of 11 m. Two maintenance hangars of s ize 25m x 40m are proposed. One hangar space can be allocated to some firm who can maintain al l type of hel icopters. The authority can ch arge suitable fee from this maintenance agency.

3.9 Navigational Aids

Helicopter f l ight paths entering controlled airspace would be handled by exist ing Airport Traffic Control Tower facil it ies at IGI Airport.


Final DPR 12

A wind sock would be required at the Heliport to show the direction and magnitude of the wind. Wind socks will be placed to provide a true indicat ion of surface wind and be clear of safety areas, TLOF and FATO areas, and heliport transitional surfaces. A heliport identif icat ion beacon wil l b e required to aid in locating the Heliport.

*****


Final DPR 13

4. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of this section is to identify, on a conceptual level, the requirements of commercial helicopter operators at the init ial planning period for the Heliport . Faci l ity requirements have been developed in accordance with the standards and recommended practices of ICAO.

4.2 Identified Facility Requirements

This section quantif ies faci l it ies for both airside and landside components of the Heliport based on planning parameters for the project documented in Section II I. It identif ies facil ity requirements for airf ield, terminal facil it ies, maintenance facil it ies, ground access, parking, support facil it ies, as well as landscaping.

4.2.1 Airfield

The airf ield of the Heliport would be comprised of two components: the apron area and the active movement area. The active movement area extends from the edge of the apron to the outside edge of the TLOF and FATO areas, and includes:

TLOF/FATOs and associated land area

Safety areas

Taxiways

4.2.2 Touchdown and Liftoff (TLOF) area 29/01/2014

Wherever it is intended that the undercarriage of a helicopter will actually touch down on the surface of a heliport or leave the surface to achieve a hover, a touchdown and lift -off area shall be provided. The dimensions of TLOF should be 1.5 t imes length or width of the undercarriage, whichever is greater, of the largest helicopter the heliport is intended to serve. However, as per amendment presently under consideration, the TLOF shall be of sufficient size to contain a circle of diameter of at least 0.8 3D of the largest helicopter the area is intended to serve.

The TLOF dimensions required for MI-172 for the proposed heliport wil l be of s ize is 21m

x 21m.


Final DPR 14

4.2.3 Final approach and take-off (FATO) area

FATO is an area over which a hel icopter completes the approach maneuver to a hover or landing or commences movement into forward f l ight in the take -off maneuver. FATO is located within the safety area and provides the defined area over which the f inal phase of the approach maneuver to hover or landing is completed and from which the take-off maneuver is commenced. Where the FATO is to be used by helicopters operated in Performance Class 1 , the defined area includes the rejected take-off area avai lable . A heliport should have an identif iable, object free area for helicopter landing and take-off. FATO should be so located that, it permits at least one clear approach / take off path aligned with the prevail ing winds. The size of FATO should not be less than 1.5 times of the overal l length/width whichever is greater of the longest/widest helicopter the heliport is intended to serve. However, as per proposed amendment no.4, the width of a FATO shal l not be less than the greatest overall dimension (D) of the largest hel icopter. In accordance with ICAO and CAR, local conditions, such as elevation and temperature, may need to be considered when determining the size of a FAT O as per guidelines given in ICAO heliport manual. The length requirement of FATO is also inf luenced by elevation of heliport above Mean Sea Level. The surface of FATO should be

Free from irregularit ies that would adversely affect the landing and take -off.

Capable of sustaining the effect of rotor down wash.

Have sufficient bearing strength to sustain rejected take off.

The proposed formation level of heliport wil l be kept at least 3m above the adjoining road and the reference temperature is 40.5 °C. In accordance with ICAO heliport manual, the FATO of s ize 30m x 30m is being considered and a total paved area of 30m x 300m is proposed in the approach areas to cater for rejected take off.

Accordingly, it is proposed to provide FATO of length 300m x 30m.


Final DPR 15

Further, when the FATO is designed to accept performance class 1 operations, i t must be capable of withstanding a rejected take -off, which may well equate to an emergency landing. The design load in this case should be taken as 1.66 times the maximum take-off mass of the heaviest helicopter for which the FATO is intended. It is therefore proposed to pave the entire area of 300m x 30m of FATO to sustain the design loads of 21580 Kg.

4.2.4 Safety Area

The safety area provides an area within which the helicopter can operate clear of obstacles, the primary function being to protect the rotor system from striking an object. A safety area surrounding Final Approach and Take -off (FATO) area intended to be used in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) shall extend outwards from the periphery of the FATO, for a distance of at least 3.00 m or 0.25 times the overal l length or width (whichever is greater), of the largest helicopter intended to be used at the heliport. A safety area surrounding a FATO intended to be used by hel icopter operations in instrument meteorological condit ions ( IMC) shall extend laterally to a distance of a at least 45 m on each side of the centre l ine and longitudinally to a distance of at least 60 m beyond the ends of the FATO.


Final DPR 16

No fixed objects shall be permitted in the safety area. No mobile object shall be permitted during hel icopter operat ions. The surface of the safety area abutting the FATO shall be continuous with the FATO and the whole of the safety shall be treated to prevent loose stones and any other f lying debris caused by rotor downwash. A safety area of size 420m x 90m (including FATO) is proposed for safety area.

4.2.5 Taxiway system

A helicopter ground Taxiway is pre -identif ied path having adequate strength to facil itate surface movement of wheeled helicopter under its own power. The purpose of providing a Ground taxiway is to provide a l ink between FATO and helicopter parking position. The taxiway system of the Heliport would accommodate the movement of helicopters between the apron areas and the TLOF and FATO areas. Due to the number of anticipated operations a dual taxiway (ground) system is recommended. As per the amendment to Ann ex-14, the width of a helicopter taxiway shal l not be less than 1.5 times the largest width of the undercarriage (UCW) of helicopters the ground taxiway is intended to serve. It i s proposed to provide a width of 7.5 m. Air taxiways are not envisaged due t o l imited availabi l ity of space. Further, a helicopter ground taxiway route shal l extend symmetrically on each side of the centerline for at least 1.5 t imes the largest overall width of the helicopters that it is intended to serve. Accordingly 40 m wide ground taxi route is proposed. Ground Taxiways of 7.5m width are proposed.

4.3 Parking Apron

The apron area extends from the face of the terminal facil ity to the edge of the taxiway, and includes:

Passenger walkways

Helicopter parking positions

Helicopter maneuvering ais les

Keeping the present f leet of helicopters, it is proposed to accommodate more number of

smaller helicopters as they constitute about 60% of the total f leet, fol lowed by the

medium helicopters. One parking posit ion is proposed for MI -172 and two parking

posit ions are proposed for Bell 412 / 407 type of helicopter .


Final DPR 17

4.4 Maintenance Facilities

The helicopter maintenance facil ity requirements have been developed assuming each operator would maintain and operate a dedicated maintenance hangar that would be located adjacent to the apron. Scheduled l ight maintenance work for each operator’s f leet would be complete d on a dai ly basis within each operator’s maintenance hangar. Each maintenance hangar would typical ly include the following facil it ies:

Large open space to maintain single hel icopter

Large open space for the storage of helicopter

Work areas for parts maintenance

Storage for parts and tools

Office space for records and inspections

It is proposed that 2 hangars of 40 m x 25 m be constructed to meet the present

requirements. However space for future two more hangars of smaller s ize is earmarked

in the master plan.

4.5 Passenger Terminal Complex

The passenger terminal facil it ies accommodate public and private activit ies for each commercial helicopter operator. Whether the facil it ies are central ized in one building, or decentralized in separate buildings, each operator wil l have dedicated space which typically includes the following functional areas:

Reception desk

Check-in-counters

Passenger lobby/waiting area

Shops, ATM facil it ies

Washrooms

Apron access point (door or gate)

Administrat ive space

The space requirements for each primary component of the passenger terminal complex have been quantif ied based on the approximate requirements. While each operator would require the same basic program elements for either a centralized or decentrali zed passenger terminal complex, there is some efficiency associated with a centralized facil ity. Eff iciencies such as a consolidated food and


Final DPR 18

beverage for al l operators and a reduction in total restroom requirements associated with centralized facil ity wou ld typical ly be offset by additional circulation space. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, central ized operator requirements have been developed.

Based on init ia l est imates, a n area of 500 sqm of terminal building including

administrat ive area is envisaged at the immediate stage with future expansion

possibi l it ies . This building wil l cater for 20 incoming and 20 outgoing passengers .

4.6 Ground Access and Parking

The ground access requirements are comprised of the terminal curbside, roadways, and vehicle parking for employees and vis itors. The primary mode of transportation for passengers to and from the Heliport would be via cars. The area requirements for the access roadway system would be based on a one-way, single- level loop system.

It is proposed to provide car parking for 25 cars.

4.7 Support Facilities

Support facil it ies associated with the Heliport would potentially include the following:

ATC building, Technical block, Met office

Fire stat ion having space for Fire tender, Ambulance and a Jeep for heliport staff.

Fuel storage yard,

Electric packaged sub-station, U.G. Tank

Navigational aids

4.7.1 ATC building

ATC building will house the control tower on the top f loor with clear visibil ity of the approaches and a ground floor to accommodate the met briefing room. 104 sqm area of building with 36 sqm tower area is therefore proposed for ATC bui lding.

The formation level of FATO is about 204.50m. The plinth level of ATC bui lding is f ixed

as 205.00m. The top of ATC tower is f ixed so that the ATC staff can have a clear look at

the surroundings.


Final DPR 19

4.7.2 Fuel system

Fueling services at the Heliport would comply with Aircraft Fuel Storage, Handling, and Dispensing on Heliports.

Init ia l ly the preferred method for fuel ing hel icopters would be thorough barrels .

It is proposed to provide a Re -fuell ing bay 5 m wide x 8 m long x 5 m high shed ( Corrugated Al Alloy Sheet metal or brick walled structure) with hard f looring and one room 3 m x 3 m x 5 m (within the shed) to house the Mini Fuel Test Lab and storage for Refueling Equipment & its Spares. This shed can be init ially used to house 20 to 25 Nos, 200 ltr Fuel barrels or the re-fueler itself . The electrical cables , l ight & fan f itt ings will be f ire & flame proof. The shed should be well ventilated and preferably have shutter doors. Either method would need to comply with local f ire regulations.

4.7.3 Navigational Aids

As discussed in the preceding section , the Heliport would require a wind sock to show the direction and magnitude of the wind, heliport l ighting of FATO, TLOF and taxiways, and a heliport identif ication beacon to aid in locating the Heliport in accordance with ICAO. For providing approach l ights 90 m of length of land is required beyond FATO for non-instrument FATO and at least 210 m length for Non-Precision FATO. The land for this faci l ity is not available.

4.8 Crash Fire Rescue Facilities

As per ICAO classif ication the levels of protection to be provided at the proposed heliport fall under “Category H3”. Under this category minimum usable amount of extinguishing agents and water needed for foam production is defined / enumerated as under: Minimum usable amount of extinguishing agents Minimum water needed 1600 Ltr.

Discharge rate Foam Solution 800 Ltr/Min

Dry Chemical powder or halons 90 Kg

Or CO2 180 Kg


Final DPR 20

The following rescue equipment are also required to be provided at site: Adjustable wrench 1 No.

Axe, rescue, non-wedge or Aircraft type 1 No.

Cutters, bolt 60 cm 1 No.

Crow bar, 105 cm 1 No.

Hook, Grab or salving 1 No.

Hack saw Heavy duty complete with 6 spare blades 1 No.

Blanket, F ire resistant 1 No.

Ladder ( length appropriate to Hel icopter in use) 1 No.

Lifeline, 5cms, 15m in length 1 No.

Pliers, side cutting 1 No.

Set of assorted screw drivers 1 No.

Harness knife complete with sheath 1 No.

Gloves, f ire resistant 3 pairs

Power cutting tools 1 No.

*****


Final DPR 21

5. SITE EVALUATION

5.1 Site Location

The heliport site is located along Yamuna Express way from Greater NOIDA to Agra opposite Gautam Bugh University in Greater NOIDA, having an area of 15.5 Acres with an elevation of 195.0 m above mean sea level and the average gradient of 0.2 m per km. The terrain of the area is generally plain with a gradual slope varying between 0.2-0.1 per cent from north-east to south-west. Presently, the area is being used as an agricultural area The Geographical Co -ordinates of the site are as given below;

Geographical Co-ordinates (WGS-84 System): o Lat N 28°27’17.77” o Long E 77°29’43.48”

Helipad Elevation: 204.5 M (671 ft) AMSL:

5.1.1 Soil Investigations

Soil investigations were carried out at Site I- Knowledge Park - I I , Greater NOIDA opposite Galgotia Institute. However this site was rejected on the grounds of noise pollution beyond permissible l imits. The proposed Site II I - Opposite Gautam Budh University at Greater NOIDA , is in a low lying area. In order to clear obstructions to f lying of aircraft, the general elevation of the site will be raised by about 8 to 10m. The stresses due to load transfer ( during landing and take -off of helicopter) dissipate within 3m from the landing surface. As the depth of f i l l ing is more than 3m, no stresses will be transferred to the original ground. Therefore the bearing capacity of the original ground shal l not have any effect on the design. Pavement design will have to be undertaken based on bearing capacity of f i l led up material and soil investigat ion of original ground will not be of any use .


Final DPR 22

5.2 Meteorology of the Area

The Met observatory to the proposed site is located at Palam airport. The data in respect of cl imatological conditions recorded at Palam observatory and published by meteorological department is discussed as under:

a) Visibil ity: It is noted from the meteorological tables that 82.8% duration of year offers visibi l ity more than 4 kms and 20.98% duration of the year offers visibil ity more than 10 kms

b) Rainfall: The annual rainfall in the area is of the order of 794 mm.

c) Temperature: The maximum temperature recorded in the month of May is

47.2 C and the minimum temperature recorded in the month of

January/February is -2.2 C. The Mean of the maximum temperature in the

hottest month (May) is 40.5 C.

d) Winds: The surface winds are mostly East -West. The predominant wind direction is North West - South East.

5.3 Orientation

The helipad is required to be placed in the predominant w ind direct ion to facil itate smooth operations. The review of wind pattern of the area, by analyzing the wind data for New Delhi reveals that NW -SE should be the preferred direction for orienting the heliport. It is observed that the land is favorably oriented for location of FATO and other facil it ies. It is proposed to position the FATO strip in East West direction. The size of paved area is kept as 300m x 30m. The area of northern side of plot has been kept totally free from any structure to provide safe approach to the helicopter as other two sides of plot are surrounded by buildings. The location of FATO is f ixed in such a way that it is almost in the centre of plot and a he licopter taking off or landing upto a slope of 3.33% can operate safely at the heliport. Thus the FATO wil l be oriented in the direction 14/32. Also it causes least sound disturbance to nearby habitants and is clear from obstructions.

5.4 Airside Facility Requirements for VFR & IFR operations

The land requirements for planning airside faci l ity under various condit ions of operations are tabulated as below:


Final DPR 23

Table 5.1: Airside Facil ity land requirement

Category FATO length (m)

Safety Area (m)

Length for approach l ights (m)

Clearance from

Boundary wall (m)

Total length

required (m)

VFR-Day 300 20 (2 x 10)

--- 140 (2 x 70)

460

VFR-Night 300 20 (2 x 10)

90 (One end

only)

70

480

IFR – Day (Non-Precision)

300 120 (2 x 60)

--- 180 (2 x 90)

600

IFR – Night (Non-Precision)

300 120 (2 x 60)

210 (one end

only)

90 720

5.5 Obstacle Limitation Surfaces

Protection of the f l ight paths associated with a helip ort is required through the provision of obstacle l imitation surfaces. The aim of obstacle restriction and removal is to define the airspace around heliports to be maintained free from obstacles so as to permit the intended helicopter operations at the heliports to be conducted safely and to prevent the heliports becoming unusable by the growth of obstacles around them. This is achieved by establishing a series of obstacle l imitation surfaces that define the l imits to which objects/ structures may project into the airspace. In order to safeguard a helicopter during its approach to the FATO and in its cl imb after take-off, it is necessary to establish an approach surface and a take -off surface through which no obstacle is permitted to project, for each approach and take-off path designated as serving the FATO. The f l ight path envelopes required to support day and night f l ights by the design helicopter operating in Performance Class 1 are def ined by criteria presented in ICAO Annex 14 volume II . The obstacle-l imiting surfaces, laid down by ICAO for ensuring safe landing take -off and maneuvering of helicopters, are one of the most important aspects of heliport planning. The obstacle l imiting surfaces required to be laid down for IFR operations are:

take-off cl imb surface;


Final DPR 24

approach surface;

transitional surfaces and

conical surface

It has further been recommended by ICAO that the fol lowing obstacle l imitation surfaces should be established for a non -precision approach FATO:

inner horizontal surface; and

conical surface

Approach Surface: An incl ined plane or a combination of planes sloping upwards from the end of the safety area and centered on a l ine passing through the centre of the FATO Take-off Climb Surface: An inclined plane, a combination of planes or, when a turn is involved, a complex surface sloping upwards from the end of the safety area and centered on a l ine passing through the centre of the FATO. Transitional Surface: A complex surface along the side of the safety area and part of the side of the approach surface, that slopes upwards and outwards to the inner horizontal surface or a predetermined height. Inner Horizontal Surface : A circular surface located in a horizo ntal plane above a FATO and its environs. Conical Surface: A surface sloping upwards and outwards from the periphery of the inner horizontal surface or from the outer l imit of the transitional surface i f an inner horizontal surface is not provided. The dimensions and slopes of obstacle l imitation surfaces are given in Annexure 1.


Final DPR 25

5.5.1 Annexure 1


Final DPR 26

5.5.2 Obstructions in Approach funnel

a. Approach 30 A visual Obstacle survey of the area has been carried out. Init ial examination of the data reveals that there is no obstruction towards western side of the Heliport .

b. Approach 12

The area towards North-west s ide (approach 12), the main obstruction is a High Tension Electr ic Transmission l ine of 220 KV passing through the approach funnel at a distance of about 800m from the FATO. Few towers of this l ine need to be buried underground.

5.6 Existing and Proposed Roads around the Heliport

It has been observed that the approach road to Gautam Budh University is passing through the approach funnels of Heliport. It may be ensured that any vehicle of height more than 4m should not pass from this road.

5.7 Presence of IGI Airport Control Zone

Examination of various Operational Charts and ATC Charts of IGI Airport such as ATS route chart, TMA (Terminal Control Area) chart , FIR Charts and aerodrome charts was carr ied out. It was seen that Greater NOIDA Proposed Heliport is also not fall ing on approach funnels or take off cl imb surfaces of any of the runways at IGI Airport. The helicopter approach paths of Greater NOIDA Heliport are also clear of aircraft paths of IGI Airport. The heliport is not located on any Restr icted, Prohibited or Danger areas. However, the proposed heliport is located inside the Control Zone of IGI Airport , Delhi, and thus prior clearance from Airports Authority of India and coordination, permission & posit ive control of ATC, IGI Airport for operations is consid ered essential. Note: As far as possible, all the obstructions in operations of helicopter should be removed. The high tension cable -Grid l ine which l ies within the approach cone and other high structures of Gautam Budh University will have to be marked with Obstruct ion Lighting and Other obstructions around would have to be marked with standard pattern painting.

*****


Final DPR 27

6. TRAFFIC DEMAND FORECAST

6.1 Introduction

It is an established fact that transport is backbone of economic development where each mode plays a vital role. On the one hand surface modes of transport, such as; rai l , road, costal shipping, inland waterways, pipe l ine, rope way, etc. are most suitable to meet goods and passenger demand in bulk, airways is able to contribute by offering most t ime effective services on the other. Since each mode has a specif ic role to play, thereby, economy requires a balanced development amongst the modes. During the past decades, all the modes have shown steady growth. There has been remarkable growth in the air transport sector in India. Due to open sky policy and the public and private sector participation, air sector is able to offer latest generation aircrafts and ultra modern terminal facil it ies to its esteemed customers, in- l ine with international standards and practices. Although, more and more cit ies f igure on our air -network, it fails to adequately provide personalized air transport services required to be offered through helicopters, as observed in the case of other develop ing and developed economies. Helicopters in their numerous forms have impacted our society in many ways. Because their landing gear can be f itted to best serve its purpose as skids, wheels, or f loats, and they have the abi l ity to hover in a stationary position and even wench people up and down, they have an amazing f lexibil ity that allows them to be util ized nearly anywhere. Helicopters possess capabilit ies other aircraft don’t have, such as f lying backward, sideways, pirouetting on their own axis, stopping mid-air, and hovering. Helicopters have a tremendous future in India. Tourism and medical evacuation are going to be major drivers of helicopter growth in India in the years to come. Given the abil ity of helicopters to f ly in varied environments and also due to the fact that infrastructure for f ixed wing aircrafts can expand only incrementally, it is but natural for hel icopters to grow at an unprecedented pace. Keeping in view the advantages of hel icopter operations and continued economic and infrastructural growth of the National Capital Region (NCR), Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) has proposed 2 25 acres of land for development of heliport facil it ies at Greater Noida Area to provide fast connectivity within and outside the reg ion.


Final DPR 28

6.2 Approach and Methodology

Aviation as an activity encompasses a wide variety of stakeholders ranging from passengers to vendors of high and strategic technologies. The most important stake holder in the sector is the common passenger whose aspira tion and need to travel is to deepen with time. He needs affordable, comfortable and safe travel with a decent quality of customer services. Presently helicopter services are regulated through Ind ira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport at Delhi in National Capital Region (NCR). The services are highly affected because of non-priority assigned to this segment of traffic. The helicopter operating agencies in and around NCR areas are unable to offer the required services, as they are unable to adhere to the agreed schedule. Since no authentic data is avai lable on number of f l ights operated as well as number of passenger handled at IGI airport, an attempt has been made to collect requisite information by interviewing selected hel icopter operators, currently operating in Delhi . The information on their current operation, such as: f leet of helicopters maintained (owned and hired), areas of operation ( indicating important destinations from Delhi) and purpose o f such vis its have been elicited. In addition, information on the ongoing terminal operating practices (both relating to taking off and landing) have been collected to estimate the overall terminal t ime involved, that can be reduced at proposed hel iport fa cil ity. To establish the demand of heliport facil ity in Greater Noida area, the agencies were requested to provide information on their medium and long term business plans, mainly relating to helicopter acquisit ioning, in the exist ing scenario as well as with the proposed heliport facil it ies Greater Noida. Similarly, the agencies were also requested to l ist out facil it ies required at the proposed heliport. As reflected in the information provided by sample operator’s catchment area (project influence area) of the proposed facil ity covers important locations in the states/UT of Uttar Pradesh, Uttrakhand, Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh. Further, to arr ive at base year transport demand, proposed Heliport is assumed as one end of the jo urney and important destinations are grouped under different regions in each State. States of Uttrakhand and Uttar Pradesh would be highly benefited by the proposed faci l ity. Further to establish the demand of heliport facil ity in Greater Noida area, l imited primary traffic and travel surveys have been conducted as detailed in subsequent paragraphs. Based on the information collected base year demand has been estimated. Four major highways are originating from the vicinity of the Greater Noida viz Yamuna Expressway, NH 2, NH 24 and NH 58. It is assumed that l imited wealthy segment of car/taxi user along these highways may use the proposed facil ity. Considering this the catchment areas of the Greater Noida


Final DPR 29

Heliport to following destinations are considered as l isted in Table 6.1 below. This also includes the opinion of various helicopter operators.

Table 6.1 Catchment Area of the Proposed Heliport at Greater Noida

S.No Origin Destination

State District

1 Greater Noida

Uttar Pradesh Mathura, Agra

Lucknow, Kanpur, Meerut Moradabad, Modinagar, Muzzaffarnagar

Uttrakhand Dehradun, Mussoorie, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarkashi, Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri, Yamunotri

Delhi IGI Airport

Himachal

Pradesh

Shimla, Solan, Kullu, Baddi

Madhya Pradesh

Gwalior

Chandigarh Chandigarh

6.3 Traffic and Travel Characteristics

6.3.1.1 Primary Traffic and Travel Surveys

A number of primary traffic volume surveys have been conducted to col lect the traffic data for the present day scenario as part of existing traffic characterist ics.

1 Classif ied traffic volume count along with origin -destinat ion survey at Yamuna Expressway and NH 2 (near Palwal – Hodal). In addit ion classif ied traffic volume count along with origin -destination survey at NH-24 & NH-58 locat ions have been taken from secondary sources of the surveys done in August – September 2013.

2 Boarding/alighting count and origin - destination survey at IGI airport terminals (T1 and T3)

3 Tourist inflow/outflow count and origin - destination survey at TajMahal (Agra)

4 Willingness to shift survey at IGI airport terminals (T1 and T3), NH -2, Yamuna Expressway, TajMahal (Agra) and New Delhi Railway Station (1660 samples).


Final DPR 30

5 Helicopter operator survey

6.3.1.2 The data collected and analyzed to assess the present traffic and travel

characteristics and movement pattern.

6.4 Classified Traffic Volume Count

6.4.1 The location of classified traffic counts are presented in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 List of Classified Traffic Volume at Selected Location

Location No. Mid-block Locations

1 Yamuna Expressway at Jewar Toll Plaza

2 National Highway No. 2 (at Km 75)

3* National Highway No. 24 (at Km 29)

4* National Highway No. 58 (at Km 27) Source: * Primary survey data from secondary sources

6.4.2 Traffic Volume (Average Daily Traffic – 16hrs)

The traffic counts both in terms of numbers of vehicles and passenger car units (PCUs) have been computed for the total daily (24 hour) traffic at various sections and presented in Table 6.3. It is observed that the traffic at selected locations varies fro m 16,336 PCU’s (9,707 vehicles) at Jewar Toll Plaza on Yamuna Expressway to 59671 PCU’s (46209 Vehicle) at Km 29.1 on NH 24.

Table 6.3 Daily Traff ic Volume at Various Locations

Loc. No. Location Name Total Vehicles Nos. Total PCU’s.


9707 16336


19342 32149

3* National Highway No. 24 (at Km 29.1)

46209 59671

4* National Highway No. 58 (at Km 27.2)

45072 58145

Source: RITES Primary Survey 2013 & * Primary survey data from secondary sources

6.5 Boarding & Alighting Counts

Boarding/In and alighting/Out counts are conducted for 48 hrs continuously at IGI Airport (Terminal 1 and Terminal 3) and at Taj Mahal (Agra) and shown in Table 6.4.


Final DPR 31

Table 6.4 Boarding/IN and Alighting/OUT counts at Various Locations

S.No Name of Location

Average Day 1 Day 2

Boarding/ IN

Alighting/ OUT

Total Boarding/ IN

Alighting/ OUT

Total

1 IGI Airport (Terminal 1)

36608 16543 21610 38153 16023 19040 35063

2 IGI Airport (Terminal 3)

56335 30171 25870 56041 28361 28267 56628

Total 46714 47480 94194 44384 47307 91691

3 Taj Mahal (Agra)

50069 27951 28003 55954 22188 21996 44184

Source: RITES Primary Survey 2013

6.6 Willingness to Shift Survey

The analysis of the data collected from the will ingness to pay surveys conducted at various locations has been presented in this section. The survey has been carried out to obtain preference of passengers/tourist about their opinion to shift to a helicopter facil ity. About 1660 persons have been surveyed at various location i .e IGI airport, Agra, Mathura, Yamuna Expressway, NH 2 and New Delhi Railway Stat ion.

6.6.1 Willingness Characteristics

The will ingness to pay surveys were conducted in order to asse ss the potential passenger demand. The respondents were asked about their will ingness to shift to proposed helicopter facil ity and pay extra fare in order to time saving with respect to their existing mode used to reach their origin/destination. The data from surveyed passengers has been analyzed and presented in following sections.

Table 6.5 shows that about 41% of respondents are will ing to shift to the proposed helicopter facil ity where as about 17.9 % gave no response. This shows that there is potential to explore demand for helicopter services.


Final DPR 32

Table 6.5 Will ingness to Shift to proposed Helicopter Facil ity

S.No Response Number of Individuals Surveyed Percentage (%)

1 Yes 681 41.0

2 No 682 41.1

3 No response 297 17.9

Total 1660 100.00 Source: RITES Primary Survey 2013

Table 6.6 presents the wil l ingness to pay extra fare for helicopter faci l ity. The table indicates that about 21% respondents want the same fare for helicopter facil ity as existing taxi fare, 49% are will ing to pay 1.5 t imes and 26.6% are showing their wil l ingness to give 2 t imes fare for helicopter facil ity in comparison to existing taxi fare and 3.1% are will ing to pay upto/more than 4 times or more fare in comparison to existing taxi fare. The passengers who are wil l ing to pay more than four t imes the exist ing amou nt they spent on travel is less than one percent (0.9%) as shown in table below.

Table 6.6 Will ingness to Pay Extra Fare in relation to Existing Car/Taxi Fare

S.No Fare Number of Individuals Surveyed Percentage (%)

1 Same fare 144 21.1

2 1.5 Times 335 49.2

3 2 Times 181 26.6

4 4 Times 15 2.2

5 more than 4 Times 6 0.9

Total 681 100.00

Source: RITES Primary Survey 2013

6.7 Origin and Destination Survey

This survey was conducted for sample car and taxi users along all the four major highways originating from the influence area i.e Yamuna Expressway & NH 2 going to Mathura and Agra and at NH 24 and NH 58 going to Lucknow, Kanpur, Moradabad, Muzzaffarnagar, Haridwar, Rishikesh, Haldwani, Dehradun, Mussoorie, Nainital, Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri, Yamunotri etc and at IGI airport. The potential helicopter demand has been worked out using this origin and destination of the car and taxi users, wil l ingness to pay and the feedback provided by various helicopters operators met during the course of the study. It wi l l be appreciated that helicopter is very expensive mode of travel. For working out the potential passenger demand it is assumed that some of the passengers who are will ing to pay more than four t imes (0.9% as presented in Table 2.6 above) of the exis ting amount spent by them on travel may l ike shift to helicopter services. Further to arrive at more real istic potential passenger


Final DPR 33

demand considering the high fare of helicopter services (i .e about 8 to 10 times of the present average expenditure) and inpu ts provided by helicopter operators, it is assumed that about f ifty percent of the 0.9% of passengers who are will ing to shift with more than four t imes of the exist ing amount spent by them on their travel may shift (i .e about 0.45%) to the proposed helico pter services. Based on the above criteria base year (2014) dai ly passenger demand has been worked out assuming the proposed facil i ty is available as on date and presented in Table 6.7 below.

Table 6.7 Base Year (2014) Daily Potential Passenger Demand

S.No Location Daily Total Volume of Car/Taxi (both direction)

Daily No. of passengers in the influence area as per Origin Destination Survey

Daily No. of passengers willing to pay/shift with more than 4 times the existing fare (about 0.9%)

Expected Daily No. of passengers willing to pay/shift with more than 4 times the existing fare (about 0.45%)


5919 2190 (37%) 20 10


5793 1796 (31%) 16 8

3 National Highway No. 24 (at Km 29.1)

13716 631 (4.6%) 6 3

4 National Highway No. 58 (at Km 27.2)

15323 6083 (39.7) 55 27

Total Volume of Boarding and Alighting Passenger

5 IGI Airport T1 38153 2823 (7.4%) 25 13

6 IGI Airport T3 56041 3194 (5.7%) 29 14


Final DPR 34

6.8 Helicopter Operator Survey

The limited hel icopter operator’s survey was conducted by meeting them and asking their views about the proposed heliport facil ity at Greater Noida. The points/issues raised by the operators are summarized below:

1. The Helicopter operators welcome an d appreciated the init iative taken by

GNIDA for development of heliport facil ity at Greater Noida.

2. The operators informed that presently there is no dedicated heliport for providing the helicopter services in Delhi NCR area. However, they also appraise that this mode of transport is presently being used by wealthy segment of the society as it is very expensive mode of travel.

3. Presently the helicopter operations are controlled at IGI Airport, Delhi and being assigned the least priority.

4. The repair and maintenance facil it ies are only at IGI airport . This facil ity should be made avai lable at the proposed heliport.

5. They also indicate that this sector presently is non -scheduled sector in India which results in delays in takeoff and landing, last minute cancelations and other unforeseen events due to rush at IGI airport.

6. The helicopter operators indicate that if the helicopter operation is given priority by means of dedicated facil ity for operations, it is believed that there is a lots of potential in this segm ent and when the people are aware of the services offered by this heliport, then more passengers may l ike to travel by hel icopter for tourism and business purpose, which may lead to reduction in f lying ticket cost of helicopter as the operator will be sure of f ixed demand of passengers.

7. The helicopter operators informed that when the dedicated heliport facil ity is made available to them they may l ike to shift the operations from IGI airport to Greater Noida Hel iport subject to the terms and conditions offered by the terminal operator for the operations.

8. The operators are of the view that the proposed heliport faci l ity should be designed to offer landing and take -off areas and support facil it ies such as; handling faci l it ies, helicopter parking, terminal build ing with facil it ies, repairs & maintenance, weather and communication, crew handling facil it ies, passenger facil itation, medical facil it ies l ike ambulance, hangar, X-ray machines, food court, ATM machines, operators counters, off ices for operators, rest rooms/wash rooms, vehicle parking faci l it ies, recreational facil it ies etc in order to provide dedicated services under one roof.

9. In addition the proposed heliport may also support helicopter operations for disaster management/ airborne rescue operations/med ical services etc.


Final DPR 35

6.9 Traffic Estimates

Based on the data collected from primary traffic and travel surveys, sample helicopter operators as well as existing and potential users, transport demand for each region has been established to arrive at dai ly/we ekly number of f l ight and passengers. The traffic is estimated with the following assumptions:

a) Adequate number of helicopters would be available to meet transport demand.

b) Services/ground infrastructure is available for all the destinations in the l isted states.

c) Day and night operat ions are feasible.

d) Airlines would be able to adhere to agreed schedule.

e) Helicopter f leet mix/composition would remain more or less the same during the project period.

In view of irregular demand for most of the destinations, weekly number of f l ights and number of passengers have been estimated for/from each region/state. It is pertinent to note that in the nearby areas there is a growing demand for festive and social purposes, such as; showering f lowers, carrying bridegroom and bride, visit of polit ical leaders and religious gurus etc. Further depending upon the purpose of vis it and type of air craft requisit ioned, different numbers of passengers have been reported. In the current exercise, anyone other than crew is considered as the passenger. Some of the destinat ions for which information on number of f l ights and number of passengers was not available, inputs from the helicopter operator are collected to the extent possible to substitute the relevant data. On the one hand, only one fl ight per day has been considered for/from the region comprising Shimla, Solan, Kul lu, Baddi in Himachal Pradesh, whereas two fl ights per day have been estimated fro m Chandigarh. Weekly and annual number of f l ights and passenger estimated for various destinations are summarized in Table 6.8. In Table 6.8 number of helicopters having seating capacity of 5 is assumed (excluding pilot) with an average occupancy of 4 passengers. However bigger helicopters having seating capacity of 12 (excluding pilot) with an average occupancy of 10 passengers may be conside red depending upon the availabil ity with the operator and passenger demand. Estimated annual requirement of helicopters with large helicopters has also been presented in Table 6.8 below.


Final DPR 36

Table 6.8 Base Year Traffic Estimation for Non Schedule Operations

S.No Origin Destination Weekly Traffic Annual Traffic

State District Passengers (Numbers)

No. of Flights (small helicopters-Avg occupancy - 4)

Passengers (Numbers)

No. of Flights (small helicopters-Avg occupancy - 4)

No. of Flights (Large helicopters-Avg occupancy - 10)

1 G re a t e r N o i d a U tt a r P ra d e s h M a t h u ra , A g r a , 1 2 6 3 2 6 5 7 0 1 6 4 3

6 5 7

L u c kn o w , K a n p u r , M ee ru t M o ra d a b a d , M o d in a g a r , M u z za f fa rn a g a r

2 1 0 5 3 1 0 9 5 0 2 7 3 8 1 0 9 5

U t t ra kh a n d D eh ra d u n , M u s s o o r i e , H a ld w a n i , N a in i ta l , U t t a r ka s h i , Ba d r in a t h , K ed a rn a th , G a n g o t r i , Y a m u n o tr i

D e l h i I G I A i r p o r t 1 8 9 4 7 9 8 5 5 2 4 6 4 9 8 6

H im a ch a l

P ra d e s h

S h im la , S o l a n , K u l l u , Ba d d i 1 1 2 2 8 5 8 4 0 1 4 6 0 5 8 4

M a d h ya P ra d es h G w a l io r 7 2 3 6 5 9 1 3 7

C h a n d ig a r h C h a n d ig a r h 5 6 1 4 2 9 2 0 7 3 0 2 9 2

Total 700 175 36500 9125 3650

2

Ot h e r F l i g h ts ( i n c l . s u r v e i l l a n c e , V I P , em erg e n c y ev a cu a t io n , M e d i ca l , m ed ia c o v er a g e , e tc . ) ( % o f a b o v e F l i g h ts )

2 0 %

1 4 0 3 5 7 3 0 0 1 8 2 5 730

Total weekly flights

210

Average daily flights

30

Grand Total 840 210 43800 10950 4380

In addition, to accommodate flights for surveillance, emergency evacuation, VIP movement, medical, media coverage, etc. 20% of the above mentioned flights have been considered.


Final DPR 37

6.10 Growth Rates

To carry out project appraisal year 2014 is considered as the base year with the project l ife upto the year 2041. Appropriate traffic growth factors have been used depending upon the Gross State Domestic Product of Uttar Pradesh (Table 6.9). Considering th is it is assumed that the demand of helicopter services is l ikely to grow at 6% per annum upto year 2031. From year 2031 to 2041 it wil l increase by 5% per annum. Annual growth rates in the project period are presented in Table 6.10.

Table 6.9 Growth Rates in All India & Uttar Pradesh (At Constant Prices)

Years

All India(GDP) Uttar Pradesh(GSDP)

Total Income (Crore Rs.)

Growth Rate (%)

Total Income (Crore Rs.)

Growth Rate (%)

( At 1999-2000 base Year )

2000-01 1864301 4.4 178997 2.2

2001-02 1972606 5.8 182885 2.2

2002-03 2048286 3.8 189682 3.7

2003-04 2222758 8.5 199682 5.3

2004-05 2388768 7.5 210462 5.4

(At 2004-05 base Year )

2004-05 2971464 260841

2005-06 3253073 9.5 277818 6.5

2006-07 3564364 9.6 300225 8.1

2007-08 3896636 9.3 322214 7.3

2008-09 4158676 6.7 344726 7.0

2009-10 4507637 8.4 365761 6.1

2010-11 4885954 8.4 394499 7.9

2011-12 5222027 6.9 419090 6.2 Source: Uttar Pradesh 12th five year plan (2012-17)

Table 6.10 Adopted Annual Compound Growth Rate (AGCR ) for Traffic

Demand Projection

S.No. Period

ACGR From To

1 2014 2021 6.00%

2 2021 2031 6.00%

3 2031 2041 5.00%


Final DPR 38

6.11 Traffic Projections

Using the growth rates as mentioned in para 6 .10 above, annual number of f l ights and passengers have been estimated as presented in Table 6.11. The number of f l ights has been calculated assuming the small helicopters with average occupancy of four passengers. It can be observed from the table that annual passenger traffic varies from about 43800 in the year 2014 to about 112110 in the year 2040-41. The annual growth of passenger and fl ights during the project period from 2014 to 2041 is graphically presented in Figure 6.1.

Table 6.11 Annual Traffic Estimates

S.No Year Annual Traffic

From To No. of Passengers No. of Flights

1 2014 2015 43800 10950

2 2015 2016 46428 11607

3 2016 2017 49214 12303

4 2017 2018 52167 13042

5 2018 2019 55296 13824

6 2019 2020 58614 14654

7 2020 2021 62131 15533

8 2021 2022 65859 16465

9 2022 2023 69811 17453

10 2023 2024 73999 18500

11 2024 2025 78439 19610

12 2025 2026 83145 20786

13 2026 2027 88134 22034

14 2027 2028 93422 23356

15 2028 2029 99028 24757

16 2029 2030 104969 26242

17 2030 2031 111267 27817

18 2031 2032 117943 29486

19 2032 2033 123841 30960

20 2033 2034 130033 32508

21 2034 2035 136534 34134

22 2035 2036 143361 35840

23 2036 2037 150529 37632

24 2037 2038 158056 39514

25 2038 2039 165958 41490

26 2039 2040 174256 43564

27 2040 2041 182969 45742

In order to develop heliport facil it ies, average daily traffic has been considered. To arrive at average dai ly level of traffic demand, all the 365 days of the year have been considered as the operating days of the proposed facil ity. The daily annual numbe r of f l ights and passengers has been estimated


Final DPR 39

as presented in Table 6.12. The number of f l ights has been calculated assuming the small helicopters with average occupancy of four passengers. It can be observed from the table that daily passenger traffic va ries from about 120 passengers and 30 f l ights in the year 2014 to about 501 passengers and 125 fl ights in the year 2040 - 41. The annual growth of passenger and fl ights during the project period from 2014 to 2040 is graphically presented in Figure 6.2.

Table 6.12 Daily Traffic Estimates

S.No Year Daily Traffic

From To No. of Passengers No. of Flights

1 2014 2015 120 30

2 2015 2016 127 32

3 2016 2017 135 34

4 2017 2018 143 36

5 2018 2019 151 38

6 2019 2020 161 40

7 2020 2021 170 43

8 2021 2022 180 45

9 2022 2023 191 48

10 2023 2024 203 51

11 2024 2025 215 54

12 2025 2026 228 57

13 2026 2027 241 60

14 2027 2028 256 64

15 2028 2029 271 68

16 2029 2030 288 72

17 2030 2031 305 76

18 2031 2032 323 81

19 2032 2033 339 85

20 2033 2034 356 89

21 2034 2035 374 94

22 2035 2036 393 98

23 2036 2037 412 103

24 2037 2038 433 108

25 2038 2039 455 114

26 2039 2040 477 119

27 2040 2041 501 125


Final DPR 40

Figure 6.1 Annual Growth of Traffic

Figure 6.2 Daily Growth of Traffic

*****


Final DPR 41

7. DEVELOPMENT PLAN

7.1 Development Plan / Master Plan

The development plan for the heliport is drawn to meet the requirements of ICAO and presented in Drawing No.1. The formation level of FATO has been fixed as approx. 204.50m AMSL as against 195 m AMSL. The major features of the heliport are as under: The entire development has been proposed on the Southern side of the

plot to provide a clear area in Northern side for helicopter movement in air.

The formation level of FATO has been fixed as 204.50m which is 3.00 m above adjoining approach road to Gautam Budh University .

The area will be provided with a 3m high RCC precast wall with concertina wire on top.

A fuel yard of size 10m x 10m is provided for storage and testing of fuel for helicopter. The area from FATO to the re -fuell ing yard is paved so that the helicopter can approach the re -fuell ing yard smoothly.

A passenger terminal building of size 25m x 20m is proposed for movement of 20 incoming and 20 outgoing passengers. This building wil l be provided with check-in counters, security check and baggage scanners. It also has space for Airport staff, security personnel, ATM, small cafeteria, booking counter, toi lets etc. The plinth level of terminal building is f ixed as 205.00m which is 0.50m above the formation level of FATO and surrounding roads.

Space for future expansion of terminal building is also earmarked in the layout plan.

An ATC tower of 15m height is proposed. The height is f ixed keeping in mind the height of nearest tallest structure so that the ATC staff can have a clear view of hel icopter approaching the heliport from any direction.

A technical block and meteorological off ice is also proposed in the ground floor of ATC tower.

The power requirement of site is 750 KVA .

The drinking water wil l be provided by GNIDA at site by laying a water l ine. A underground water tank is proposed to store water for drinking and for f irefighting purposes.


Final DPR 42

Two hangers of size 25m x 40m are proposed for pa rking and maintenance of helicopters.

A small car park with capacity of 25 cars is proposed in the Northern end of plot.

The exist ing nalla will be used for removal of rain water from the heliport.

A sewage treatment plant will be installed at site for eff icient treatment of sewage.

The exist ing approach road to site will be used for incoming and outgoing of passengers.

The DPR wil l be submitted to MOCA, AAI, MoEF, MOD, MHA and DGCA for processing the case for statutory clearances.

The construction act ivit ies can start only after necessary clearance from above authorities is received.

*****


Final DPR 43

8. DESIGN OF PAVEMENT

Concrete pavement is recommended by the US method for all hel icopter operational areas. For the proposed heliport at Greater NOIDA, New Delhi , the US practice of design was followed and AC 150/5320-6C and Doc 9157-AN/901 were used to determine the pavement thickness . Rigid pavements for airports are composed of Portland cement concrete placed upon a granular or treated sub base course that rests upon a compacted sub grade.

Concrete Pavement: The concrete surface must provide an acceptable nonskid surface, prevent the infi ltration of surface water, and provide structural support to the aircraft. Sub Base: The purpose of sub base is to provide a uniform stable support for the pavement slabs. A minimum thickness of 4 inches (10 cm) is required under all r igid pavements except in GW , GP, GM, GC, SW soils under specif ic conditions of drainage. Preliminary investigation of the soil indicates th at the exist ing soi l contains ML, CL or OL. (Si lt and clay).Hence sub base is definitely required. 7 inches of PCC grade M15 is therefore proposed.

Stabilized Sub Base: Stabil ized sub base is to be required for al l new rigid pavements designed to accommodate aircraft weighing 45,400 kg or more. As the heaviest aircraft to be used is MI 172, weighing 13,000 kg (<<45,400 kg), hence stabi l ized sub base is not required.

Sub Grade: The sub grade material under a rigid pavement should be compacted to provide adequate stabil ity and uniform support. The % maximum density to which the soi l is to be compacted and the depth of soi l to be compacted depend upon the soil characteristics.

Determination of K-value for sub grade: Based on soi l investigation a sub grade modulus, k is considered as 50pci (=13.6MN/m3). This value may change after f inal compacted surface is obtained and the design will be reviewed accordingly.

Determination of k value for granular sub base: Using the design chart given in AC 150/5320-6C, the increase in the value of k due to the assumed thickness of sub base is determined. The value of k after considering the effect of sub base is 77 pci (=20.4MN/m3). Determination of Concrete Slab thickness: Separate curves have been provided for single, dual and dual tandem landing gear assemblies. These curves are based on a jointed edge loading assumption where the load is


Final DPR 44

tangent to the joint. Use of the design curve requires four design input parameters:

concrete f lexural strength,

sub grade modulus,

gross weight of the design aircraft and

Annual departure of the design aircraft .

a) Concrete flexural strength: Concrete f lexural strength should be experimentally determined. Normally a 90-day f lexural strength is used for design. The designer can safely assume that the 90 day f lexural strength is 10% higher than the 28- day strength except when high early strength cement or pozzolanic admixtures are used.( in that case 28-day f lexural strength should be used for design).

We assume a 28-day f lexural strength of 45 kg/ cm2 (=4.5 MN/m2) which is increased

by 10% to give a 90-day f lexural strength of 4.95 MN/m2 = 717.391 psi .

b) k value : The k-value is indicative of the bearing value of the material supporting the rigid pavement. We assume a k-value corrected for the effect of sub base. k =77 pci (=20.4MN/m3)

c) Gross weight of Aircraft: The gross weight of design aircraft is shown on each design curve. The design aircraft is chosen on the basis of maximum pavement thickness required. MI-172 with a weight of 13,000kg (=28,634.36lb), design weight of 21,580kg (=47,533lb) is the heaviest aircraft while Bel l 412, with a weight of 5397kg (=11,887.66lb),design weight of 8959.02kg(=19,733.52lb) is the 2nd heaviest aircraft. MI 172 requires the greatest pavement thickness and is thus the design aircraft.

d) Annual departures of design aircraft : As l imited information is available

about the traffic intensity at the heliport, hence, different departure values are assumed and pavement thickness is determined for each.


Final DPR 45

Using the design curve for single -wheel gear, the following values of thickness of pavement are obtained:

Table 8.1: Thickness of pavement

Annual departures Thickness(in)

1200 8.3

3000 8.8

6000 9.2

15000 9.7

25000 10

8.1 Conclusion

A concrete pavement of 10 inches thickness is proposed over 6 inches of Crushed Aggregate Base Course for the pavement for the largest ass umed value of annual departures .

*****


Final DPR 46

9. COST ESTIMATE

An indicative cost is given below covering the proposed development works for the immediate implementation of non -instrument, day and special VFR operations. The estimate is derived based on unit pl inth area rates for building, item rate for pavement works and lump sum rate for equipments. The cost also includes contingencies @ 3% and consultancy charges towards detailed engineering and project management.

Development of Heliport at Greater NOIDA - Indicative Project Cost (Non-Instrument)

Name of Work : Development of Heliport at Greater Noida

Abstract of Cost

S. No. Description of Work Cost in Rs

1 Terminal Building 9,63,19,481.00

2 ATC Building 1,97,11,256.00

3 Fire station Bui lding 69,69,212.76

4 Hangar 6,81,93,050.00

5 Fuel Yard 23,13,531.25

6 Underground Water Tank( 1,50,000 l itres capacity )

21,50,177.53

7 Boundary Wall 3.0 Mt High, (Length 1273.00 mts) as per DSR 2013

1,12,05,844.70

8 Installation of Tube well at Site (NS Item) As per Quotation

8,01,150.00

9 Paved Area 16,37,15,047.98

10 Provision of water supply from GNIDA O. H. Tank to Site

5,03,688.00

11 Sub Station Equipment 60,37,500.00

12 HVAC for Terminal building 43,12,500.00

13 CCTV for Terminal Building and Other areas 75,33,500.00

14 D.G Set 86,25,000.00

15 HT l ine (Nearest sub-station to premises of heliport)

75,00,000.00


Final DPR 47

16 Communication and Navigational Equipments, Computers, Hand driers and Water coolers

21,35,093.00

17 Baggage Scanner, HHMD and DFMD 66,11,250.00

18 Misc. Items (Lift, Split AC, Boom Barrier, Air curtain, Sliding Door, Ambulance, Jeep)

2,84,41,000.00

19 Total Amount 44,30,78,282.22

20 Add Contingencies 3% 1,32,92,348.47

45,63,70,630.68

21 Detailed Engineering Charges @ 3% 1,36,91,118.92

22 Project Management Charges @ 7% 3,19,45,944.15

Grand Total 50,20,07,693.75

*****


Final DPR 48

10. ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR GREATER NOIDA

HELIPORT

10.1 Objectives of EIA Study

Heliport development may have impact on the environment by construction work, reclamation, noise and emissions from helicopters. Environment facets to be considered in relation to heliport development can be categorized into seven groups: (a) land use (b) water quality (c) air quality (d) noise pol lution (e) biological changes (f) socio -economic changes and occupational health and (g) sol id waste management. The objective of the study is to facil itate the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority to obtain prior environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), Government of India as per EIA notif ication 2006 and its amendments. As per MoEF guidelines, No landfil l shall be located within 20 km of Airport or Airbase. This nee ds to be considered while selecting the site for the proposed Heliport.

10.2 Legal Provisions for Environment related to Infrastructure Projects

The proposed project would be governed by various Acts, Rules and regulations set by the Ministry of Environm ent and Forests (MoEF) at the Central level and other regulatory agencies at the State and local level. The Central government framed an ‘umbrella law’, called the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to broadly encompass and regulate an array of environmental issues. The overall purpose of EPA was to establish an overal l coherent policy and provide a basis for the coordinated work of various government agencies with operational responsibi l ity for the environment and natural resources. National Environment Policy (NEP, 2006) has been drawn up as a response to our national commitment to a clean environment, mandated in the Constitution in Art icles 48 A and 51 A (g), strengthened by judicial interpretation of Art icle 21. The Acts, Rules and Notif icat ions appl icable to environmental aspects of the constructional and operational phases of the proposed project are summarized in the Table 1 below and briefly described in the following sections.


Final DPR 49

Table 1 Summary of Environmental Legislation For The Project

LEGISLATION AREA / ACTIVITY COVERED

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 amended 1991;

Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986

Overall Environment Protection

Compliance to environmental (Air, Water, Noise) Standards issued under EPR

EIA Notif ication 2006 and its amendments

Guidelines to prepare EIA/ EMP report

Obtain Environmental Clearance from MoEF

Take part in Environmental Public Hearing (EPH)

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 amended in 1987;

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1981

Protection of Air Quality

Consent to Establish (CTE) for establishing and

Consent to Operate for activit ies causing air pollution

Compliance to National Ambient Air Quality Standard

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 amended in 1988;

Water (Prevention and Control of Pol lution) Rules, 1975

Protection of Water Quality

Discharge of sewage from project

Obtaining No Objection Certif icate (NOC) for establishing and Consent to Operate for activit ies causing water pollution from SPCB

Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 amendment in 2010

Compliance with Ambient Noise Standards in accordance to land use of the area

Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Trans boundary Movement ) Rules,2008

Obtaining Authorization from SPCB for handling and storing of hazardous waste l ike waste oil and lubricants

Following guidance for handling and storing of such hazardous waste

Petroleum Act with Rules 2000

Comply with guidance and safety measures for storage, and transportation of petroleum substances within project premises

Municipal Solid Waste Rules, 2000

Management (Col lection, Handling, Intermediate Storage) of domestic solid waste from residences

State Town Planning Acts Obtain permits and sanction for land


Final DPR 50

LEGISLATION AREA / ACTIVITY COVERED

Develop the project in accordance with Land use and Master plans

National Pol icy on Resettlement and Rehabil itation, 2007

Resettlement and Rehabilitation issues of project affected people

Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 amended in 1988;

Forest (Conservation) Rules 2003

To obtain proper clearances from forest department

Conservation of forest

Indian Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, amended in 1993

Protection of animals and specif ied plants

Source: GOI Publications

10.3 Environmental Clearance for Development Projects

The permitting requirement involved in the setting up of development projects (projects with potential to cause signif icant environmental impacts) in India is through the Environmental Clearance (EC) Process on the basis of an Environmental Impact Assessment study. The EC process is mandated by the EIA notif ication (as amended) of 4th May 1994 and 14th September 2006. The EC process is administered by the State Pollution Control Board/State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) at the state level and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) at the Central Government level. The schedule in the new EIA notif icat ion provides the l ist of projects or activit ies requiring prior environmental clea rance. All the projects l isted in the notif ication are categorized into “Category A” and “Category B” categories, based on the extent of potential impacts and sensitivity of the candidate sites. Category A: Appraisal wi l l be done by the Central Level Ex pert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and clearance wil l be given by MoEF. Category B: Appraisal wil l be done by the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) and clearance will be given by State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), except in c ase of special conditions and general conditions. Sub grouped as category B1 (EIA necessary) and category B2 (EIA not necessary). The environmental clearance (EC) process consists of the following stages:

Applicat ion for EC - to be made by the project proponent (PP) to the concerned authority with form 1 (and form 1a with conceptual plan for


Final DPR 51

construction projects only), pre -feasibil ity report (PFR) and terms of reference for conducting EIA study.

Screening - to be done by SEAC for category B projects only, to further classify as category B1 and B2. EIA will be necessary if classif ied as category B1.

Scoping - determination of terms of reference (ToR) for EIA study for category A and category B1 projects. To be done by EAC (for category A) or SEAC (for category B1).

EIA study - based on the ToR, the project proponent (PP) wil l prepare draft EIA & EMP.

Public Hearing/Consultation - with draft EIA and EMP public hearing/consultation wil l be organized. Issues raised will be addressed in f inal EIA & EMP report.

Appraisal - EIA & EMP will be appraised by EAC (for category A) and SEAC (for category B1). For category B2, EIA is not required; appraisal wi l l be done by SEAC on the basis of form 1 and PFR only.

Decision - on the basis of recommendations by EAC / SEAC, clearance wil l be f inally granted or rejected by the MoEF (for category A) / SEIAA (for category B).

As per S.No. 7A of EIA Notif ication dated September 14, 2006 and MoEF notif ication dated December 1, 2009; all airport projects including airstr ips which are for commercial use need to get EC from MoEF. The proposed project, which is proposed for commercial use needs to get EC from MoEF.

10.4 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act

The use of water resources and also the discharge of polluted water (sewerage) are primarily regulated by the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Water Cess Act, 1977 including Rules 1978 and 1991 provides for levy and collection of Cess on water consumed by the local authorities and by persons carrying on certain industrial activit ies with a view to generate resources for prevention and control of water pollution. The Act assigns functions and powers to the CPCB and SPCBs for prevent ion and control of water pollution and all related matters. The Environment (Protection) Rules under the EPA also lays down specif ic standards for quality of water effluents to be discharged into different type of water bodies (sewers, surface water bodi es l ike lakes and r ivers, and marine discharge). Additionally, the water supplied to users for drinking shall a lso conform to the National Drinking Water Standard, IS -10500. Table 2 summarizes the general standards for discharge of eff luent in Inland Surfa ce Water Bodies.


Final DPR 52

TABLE 2

EFFLUENT DISCHARGE STANDARDS (INLAND SURFACE WATER)

S No PARAMETER UNIT STANDARDS

1 Colour & Odor -- All efforts should be made to remove colour and unpleasant odor as far as practicable.

2 Suspended Solids Max. mg/l 100

3 Particle size of Suspended Solids -- Shall pass 850 micron IS Sieve

4 pH value -- 5.5 to 9.0

5 Temperature, Max. oC Shall not exceed 5C above the receiving water temperature

6 Oil and grease, Max. mg/l 10

7 Total residual Chlorine, Max. mg/l 1.0

8 Ammonical Nitrogen (as N), Max. mg/l 50

9 Total Kjeldah Nitrogen (as N), Max.

mg/l 100

10 Free Ammonia (as NH3), Max. mg/l 5

11 Biochemical Oxygen Demand

(5days at 20C) Max.

mg/l 30

12 Chemical Oxygen Demand Max. mg/l 250

13 Arsenic (as As), Max. mg/l 0.2

14 Mercury (as Hg), Max. mg/l 0.01

15 Lead (as Pb), Max. mg/l 0.1

16 Cadmium (as Cd), Max. mg/l 2.0

17 Hexavalent Chromium (as Cr+6), Max.

mg/l 0.1

18 Total Chromium (as Cr) Max. mg/l 2.0

19 Copper (as Cu), Max. mg/l 3.0

20 Zinc (as Zn), Max. mg/l 5.0

21 Selenium (as Se), Max. mg/l 0.05

22 Nickel (as Ni), Max. mg/l 3.0

23 Cyanide (as CN), Max. mg/l 0.2

24 Fluorides (as F), Max. mg/l 2.0

25 Dissolved phosphates (as P), Max.

mg/l 5.0

26 Sulphides (as S), Max. mg/l 2.0

27 Phenolic compounds (as C6H5OH), Max.

mg/l 1.0

28 Radioactive Materials

Emitters, curie/ml, Max.

Emitters, curie/ml, Max.

10-7 10-6


Final DPR 53

S No PARAMETER UNIT STANDARDS

29 Bio-assay test -- 90% survival of f ish after 96 hours in 100% effluent

30 Manganese (as Mn) mg/l 2.0

31 Iron (as Fe) mg/l 3.0

32 Nitrate Nitrogen mg/l 10.0

10.5 Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act

The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (also commonly known as the Air Act) including Rules 1982 and 1983 was enacted to prevent, control and reduce air pollution. According to Section 21 of the Act, no person shal l establish or operate any activity, which can cause air pollution without obtaining Consent to Establish (CTE) as per the Air Act. The Act also lays down national ambient air quality standards for common pollutants l ike PM, Sulphur Dioxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, Carbon monoxide and Lead with the intent of managing air quality for different category of areas (residential/industrial and sensitive). Ambient Air Quality Standards have been notif ied by the MoEF vide Gazette Notif icat ion dated 16th November 2009, which have been presented as Table 3.

TABLE 3

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

POLLUTANT TIME WEIGHTED AVERAGE

CONCENTRATION

INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL, RURAL AND OTHER AREA

SENSITIVE AREA

Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) g/m3 Annual Avg. 24 Hours

50 80

20 80

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

g/m3

Annual Avg. 24 Hours

40 80

30 80

Particulate Matter (PM10)

Size less than 10m g/m3


60 100

60 100

Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Size less than 2.5m g/m3


40 60

40 60

Ozone (O3) g/m3 8 Hours 1 Hour

100 180

100 180

Lead (Pb) g/m3 Annual Avg. 24 Hours

0.5 1.0

0.5 1.0

Carbon Monoxide (CO) mg/m3

8 Hours 1 Hour

02 04

02 04

Ammonia (NH3) g/m3 Annual Avg. 24 Hours

100 400

100 400

Benzene (C6H6) g/m3 Annual Avg. 05 05


Final DPR 54

POLLUTANT TIME WEIGHTED AVERAGE

CONCENTRATION

INDUSTRIAL, RESIDENTIAL, RURAL AND OTHER AREA

SENSITIVE AREA

Benzo (a)Pyrene (BaP) - Particulate Phase only ng/m3

Annual Avg. 01 01

Arsenic (As) ng/m3 Annual Avg. 06 06

Nickel (Ni) ng/m3 Annual Avg. 20 20

10.6 Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules

With the objective of regulating ambient noise quality in the environment, the Central Government has notif ied the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2010 under the EPA. The noise standards for different category of areas are based on the weighted equivalent noise level (Leq). These are presented in Table 4.

TABLE 4

NATIONAL AMBIENT NOISE STANDARDS

CATEGORY OF ZONES Leq IN dB (A)

DAY NIGHT

Industrial 75 70

Commercial 65 55

Residential 55 45

Silence Zone 50 40

Source: Central Pollution Control Board

1. Daytime is from 6.00 AM to 10.00 PM.; 2. Night t ime shal l mean from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 AM; 3. Silence zone is an area comprising not less than 100 metres around hospitals, educational institutions, courts, rel igious places or any other area which is declared as s uch by the competent authority; 4. Mixed categories of areas may be declared as one of the four above mentioned categories by the competent authority

10.7 Environmental Baseline Data

The baseline Data/Information for Land use, physiographic, geology, soi l, water, air and noise quality of the project area will be collected from various primary as well as secondary sources. Additional data, wherever necessary, shall be collected from various reports, l iterature, books, and maps, and through discussions with various stakeholders. Based on the project features and prevail ing acts and legislations the environmental scoping matrix has also been prepared and prepared in Table 5.


Final DPR 55

The environmental attributes l ikely to be affected are identif ied for basel ine data generation. The information presented in the report has been col lected from various secondary sources.

TABLE 5

SCOPING MATRIX FOR THE PROJECT

Aspect of Environment

Likely Impacts

A. Land Environment

Construction Phase

Increased soil erosion

Pollution by construction spoi ls

Use of land for workers colonies

Change in land use

Solid waste from workers colonies, construction sites

B. Water Resources & Water Quality

Construction Phase

Water quality impacts due to disposal of wastewater from workers camps and construct ion sites.

Depletion of groundwater resources

Operation Phase Depletion of groundwater resources

Disposal of waste water

C. Air Pollution

Construction Phase

Impacts due to emissions generated by construction machinery

Fugitive emissions from various sources

Impacts due to increased vehicular movement

Operation Phase Fugitive emission due to helicopter and traffic movement

D. Noise Pollution

Construction Phase Noise due to operation of various equipment

Noise due to increased vehicular movement

Operation Phase Noise Impact due to helicopter and traffic movement on the nearby Institutional and Residential Areas.

10.8 Physiography

The project is situated at Greater Noida of Gautam Budh Nagar District with co-ordinates of 28O 27’ 17.77”N and 77O 29’ 43.48” E with an elevation of 195.0 m above mean sea level and the average gradient of 0.2 m per km. The terrain of the area is general ly plain with a gradual s lope varying between 0.2 -0.1 per cent from north-east to south-west. Gautam Budh Nagar distr ict , a part of Ganga-Yamuna Doab in the vicinity of River Yamuna, forms almost a monotonous plain with occurrence of sand dunes, sandy ridges, ravenous


Final DPR 56

tracts and depressions close to the river s ystem of Yamuna. Physical map of the Uttar Pradesh State is depicted in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

PHYSICAL MAP OF UTTARPRADESH

The district fal ls in geological formations of quaternary alluvium consisting of sands with different grades, si lt , clay and kankar.

Soils

Soils consist of mechanical mixtures and chemical compounds of the materials found on the surface of the earth. The physical and chemical characters of the parent rock are influenced by the process of soil formation which depends on the physiography, alt itude, cl imatic condition, plants and animals of the surrounding region. They contain both inorganic and organic mate rials. The project area falls in loamy soils.

Project Area


Final DPR 57

Drainage

The district is having river Hindon and Yamuna, both f lowing southwards. Apart from these two main rivers, the area has a number of drains, which are perennial as well as non-perennial in nature. Hence, it is natural that al l the drainage channels follow the northeast to southwest slope. Water Environment

Ground water occur under Phreatic conditions in shallow aquifers down to the depth of 100 mbgl, where as in intermediate and deeper aquifers it occurs under confined to semi-confined condit ions. Water level in phreatic aquifer ranges from 3.35 to 14.40 m bgl during pre -monsoon period whereas it ranges from 2.00m to 13.95 mbgl during post monsoon period. In general ground water quality in the district is good and al l the constituents are well within the permissible l imits as prescribed by ICMR (1975). The general range of various important chemical constituents in the ground water samples are given in Table 6.

TABLE 6

RANGES OF CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUND WATER

S. No PARAMETER UNIT RANGE

1. pH - 7.95 - 8.15

2. Electrical Conductivity µs/cm at 25oC

419 - 2270

3. Bicarbonate mg/l 152 - 750

4. HCO3 mg/l 156-350

5. Chloride mg/l 14-347

6. Nitrate mg/l 3.3-141

7. Sulphate (mg/l) mg/l 9.6 – 125

8. Fluoride {mg/l) mg/l 0.27 - 1.7

9. Calcium (mg/l) mg/l 8 - 136

10. Magnesium (mg/l) mg/l 4.8 - 50

11. Total Hardness as CaCO3 (mg/l)

mg/l 150 - 450

12. Sodium (mg/l) mg/l 35 - 506

13. Potassium (mg/l) mg/l 4.8 - 18

14. Arsenic (mg/l) mg/l 0.07 – 0.001

Seismicity

The state of Uttar Pradesh falls in a region of High Damage Risk Zone (Zone I I) to Very High Damage Risk Zone (Zone V) and the proposed project location falls in Zone IV as per revised seismic zoning map of India. Suitable seismic


Final DPR 58

factor need to be considered while designing the structures for the proposed corridor.

10.9 Analysis of Alternatives

The analysis of alternatives is important while considering the site for any infrastructure projects. Analysis of Alternatives for Heliport site was carried out considering engineering and environmental factors. At this stage, typical environmental information will be collected and the environmental screening wil l be carr ied out on the basis of topographical features from Google earth images, l iterature and field o bservations. The criteria considered for the site evaluation of the proposed sites will be as follows:

Physical Aspects: Physical aspects considered for evaluation of the sites are land use, physiography, water bodies, existing public amenities and other natural resources.

Pollution Aspects: Noise parameter is the prime consideration for selection of any Heliport . Settlements will be identif ied for noise pollut ion impacts with respect to the locat ion of Heliport. Presence of any water body within the project area will a lso be identif ied for evaluation.

Ecological Aspects: Information on trees/other biotic l ife within the project area will be collected for the evaluation of the sites. Ecologically sensitive area l ike wild l ife sanctuary or national par k etc will be identif ied with respect to location of the project s ite to evaluate the impact of Heliport on it.

Three sites were proposed by GNIDA for the development of Heliport at Greater Noida. Satel l ite image of the three sites are shown in Figure 2. The brief description of these sites is given below and comparison table of all the three sites is given in Table 7.


Final DPR 59

FIGURE 2-SATELLITE IMAGE OF THREE SITES


Final DPR 60

Site I

The proposed site is barren land. The site is surrounded by educational institutes on N-E and N-W directions and Noida and Yamuna Expressways on S-E and S-W directions. Satel l ite image of the Site I is shown in Figure 3. No water body exists within the pro ject area. The river Yamuna and Hindon are falls within 10 KM radius of the project area. High Tension Line (HTL) is passing on western side of the project site, which will obstruct the helicopter movement.

FIGURE 3 SATELLITE IMAGE OF SITE I

Site II

The proposed site is barren land. The site is surrounded by Noida and Yamuna Expressways on N-E and N-W directions and Hindon River on S -E and S-W directions. No water body exists within the project area; however Hindon River is passing adjacent to the Site II . The proposed site does not falls in the f lood prone area of River Hindon. The river Yamuna fal ls within 10 KM radius of the project area. High Tension Line (HTL) is proposed through the project site. Satell ite image of the Site II is shown in Figure 4.


Final DPR 61

Site III The proposed site is barren and agricultural land. The site is surrounded by residential area on Eastern, Western & Northern sides; and educational institute (Gautam Budh University) on Southern side. Yamuna Expressways is passing on S-W direction of the site. Satell ite image of the Site III is shown in Figure 5. One stream is passing adjacent to the site. The river Yamuna and Hindon are falls within 10 KM radius of the project area. HTL is passing on N -E side of the project area, which may obstruct the Helicopter landing and takeoff. Runway orientation slightly modified to make the Helicopter landing path free of obstacles.

FIGURE 4

SATELLITE IMAGE OF SITE I I


Final DPR 62

FIGURE 5

SATELLITE IMAGE OF SITE I I I

TABLE 7

SITE COMPARISON FOR GR.NOIDA HELIPORT

S. No

Parameter Site I Site II Site III

1. Location

Latitude 28o 27’ 19.35” N

28o 26’ 54.68” N

28o 26’ 06.10” N

Longitude 77o 29’ 43.66” E 77o 29’ 36.53” E

77o 31’ 41.65” E

Elevation in m 195 196 193

2. Land use Barren Barren Agriculture

3. Surrounding Area of Heliport

Educational Institutes + Residential Area

Residential Area

Hospital + Educational Institutes + Residential Area

4. Major Environmental Impact during operation

Noise levels are exceeding the l imits for Sensitive and

Noise levels are exceeding the l imits for Residential

Noise levels are exceeding the l imits for Sensitive and


Final DPR 63

Residential Zones (section 4.4)

Zones (section 4.4)

Residential Zones (section 4.4)

5. Water body No water body exists within the project area

Hindon river is adjacent to the site

Stream passing adjacent to the site

6. HTL HTL exists on western part of the site, which obstruct the Helicopter Takeoff

HTL is proposed through the site and approved by the competent authority.

HTL exists on North eastern part of the site. Runway orientation modified to overcome the obstacle.

10.10 Impacts Assessment

Various environmental parameters are to be studied during construction and operational phase of the heliport project for assessment of their impact on the surrounding environment. Environmental impacts could be positive or negative, direct or indirect, local, regional or global, reversible or irreversible during various phases of project cycle namely, location, design, construction and operation.

10.10.1 Impacts on Land Environment

The impacts l ikely to take place due to the project location could be ch ange in land use and its diversion for project purpose including land acquisit ion if any. This impact includes change in land use, drainage and soil quality, soil erosion, r isk due to earthquakes and sol id waste.

10.10.2 Impact on Water Environment

The impacts on water environment will be during its use in construction and operation period, on water resources and on drainage system of the area. Water use for Helicopter and vehicle washing, potable water supply, catering facil it ies, toilets, f ire f ighting operation, cooling plants, air conditioners and other facil it ies would also need to be assessed.

10.10.3 Impacts on Air Environment

An impact due to construction activit ies involved at the proposed Heliport wil l be workout for construction equipments an d vehicles. During operation phase, impact on ambient air qual ity due to air emissions from multiple


Final DPR 64

volume sources (from moving source) such as Hel icopters, surface vehicles and point sources such as DG Sets wil l be predicted. The maximum incremental ground level concentrations due to the heliport project are PM, SO2, NOx, CO, and HC.

10.10.4 Impact on Noise Environment

Impact of noise should be anticipated during construction and operation phase of the project cycle. Noise at a construction site varies and depends on the construction activit ies in progress. The prime sources of noise levels during the construction phase are the construction machinery and the vehicular noise due to material movement at the site. Noise sources associated with heliport during operation phase are:

Helicopter Noise - generated by helicopter in the air during takeoff and landing,

Ground Noise - Helicopter engines noise during idling, DG sets, vehicles,

In order to estimate/ predict the noise around the Airport/Heliport , Integrated Noise Model (INM) version 7.0 D was used. INM is used worldwide for computing noise contours from Airport/Heliport and it is also recommended by MoEF.

To know the noise impacts on surrounding areas, INM 7.0 D Noise model is used to develop the noise contours. Noise contours scenarios are prepared for the years 2014-15, 2024-25, 2034-35 and 2040-41. The noise contours are prepared using BELL 407 Helicopters. Traffic data considered for the noise modeling are given in following Table 8 as per the details available in Traffic Chapter.

TABLE 8

TRAFFIC DATA

S. No

Year Passengers

No. of Flights Incoming Outgoing Total

1. 2014-15 60 60 120 15

2. 2024-25 108 107 215 27

3. 2034-35 187 187 374 47

4. 2040-41 251 250 501 63

Site I

The proposed project area is surrounded by Institutional and residential areas. Noise modeling was carried out by considering landing and takeoff


Final DPR 65

paths on eastern side due to obstruction of HTL on western side. The output of noise contours prepared by mode ling is shown in Annexure 1.

The noise contour for the year 2014 -15 shows that Institutional area and residential area adjacent to proposed project s ite falls in noise levels of 55-65 dB (A).




From the results, it is understood that the noise levels during the project operation exceeds the noise for residential zone l imit of 55 dB(A) and silence zone l imit of 50 dB(A) for day time.

Site II

The proposed project area is surrounded by express highways. Noise modeling was carried out by considering landing path from eastern direct ion and takeoff path towards western side. The output of noise contours prepared by modeling is shown in Annexure 2.

The noise contour for the year 2014 -15 shows that residential area towards eastern side of the project site falls in noise levels of 55 -60 dB (A).

The noise contour for the year 2024 -25 shows that residential area towards eastern side of the project site falls in noise levels of 55 -60 dB (A).

The noise contour for the year 2034 -35 shows that residential area in landing and takeoff paths fall s in noise levels of 55-65 dB (A).

The noise contour for the year 2040 -41 shows that residential area in landing and takeoff paths falls in noise levels of 55 -65 dB (A).

From the results, it is understood that the noise levels during the project operation exceeds the noise for residential zone l imit of 55 dB(A).


Final DPR 66

Site III

The proposed project area is surrounded by Institutional and residential areas. Noise modeling was carried out by considering landing path from eastern direction and takeoff path towards western side. The output of noise contours prepared by modeling is sh own in Annexure 3.

The noise contour for the year 2014 -15 shows that Institut ional area in landing direction fal ls in noise levels of 55 -65 dB (A).

The noise contour for the year 2024 -25 shows that Institut ional area in landing path falls in noise levels of 55-65 dB (A) and residential area in takeoff path falls in noise levels of 55 -60 dB (A).

The noise contour for the year 2034 -35 shows that Institut ional area in landing path falls in noise levels of 55 -65 dB (A) and residential area in takeoff path fall s in noise levels of 55-60 dB (A).

The noise contour for the year 2040 -41 shows that Institut ional area in landing path falls in noise levels of 55 -65 dB (A) and residential area in takeoff path falls in noise levels of 55 -65 dB (A).

10.10.5 General Mitigation Measures

The helicopter paths should follow unpopulated routes or areas with high ambient noise levels such as highways.

The helicopter operator should follow the measures given below to reduce the noise at sensitive and residential areas:

maintaining a hover/circling at higher alt itudes,

Optimal hel icopter route planning to avoid noise sensitive areas

reduce speed,

observe low noise speed/descent settings,

avoid sharp maneuvers, and

use high take-off/descent profiles

10.10.6 Impacts on Biological Environment

Based on the biological species found in the area, the biological value of the species found in the study area is to be assessed. This assessment will help in the development of landscaping which forms one of the important mitigation measures.


Final DPR 67

10.10.7 Socio- Economic Impacts

Heliport development may often cause relocation of the local community, which sometimes causes ethnic, cultural, tribal or religious conflicts with local people. During construction, employment opportunity wil l increase due to deployment of people in various activit ies of project. Some socio - economic impacts associated with heliport are:

Noise impact on students/residents/workers

Impact on Cultural Heritage of the project area

Impact on Social status of the pro ject area

10.11 Positive Impacts

Based on project particulars and the existing environmental conditions potential positive impacts l ikely to result from the proposed project will be identif ied. These could have been are as follows:

Better connectivity

Emergency Services

Revenue Generation

Employment Opportunities, and

Improvement in Aesthetics

Hence, The Environmental & Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) is to be carried out to identify the environmental & social issues/aspects for proposed development of Heliport at Greater Noida, which would have environmental impacts due to planning, design location, construction and operation of the project. Based on above, it is felt that the site No. II I is best sui ted for development of Heliport. Detailed Assessment on environmental impacts and their management plan will be carried out during EIA study after getting Terms of Reference (TOR) from MoEF.


Final DPR 68

ANNEXURE 1

SITE 1: NOISE CONTOUR IMAGE FOR YEAR 2014-15


Final DPR 69

ANNEXURE 1 Contd. ..



Final DPR 70




Final DPR 71




Final DPR 72

ANNEXURE 2

SITE II: NOISE CONTOUR IMAGE FOR YEAR 2014-15


Final DPR 73




Final DPR 74




Final DPR 75




Final DPR 76

ANNEXURE 3

SITE III: NOISE CONTOUR IMAGE FOR YEAR 2014-15


Final DPR 77




Final DPR 78




Final DPR 79



*****


Final DPR 80

11. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

11.1. Introduction

Financial viabil ity is defined as a business’ abil ity to generate enough income in order to meet its operating expenses, f inancial obligations and, where applicable to allow growth while maintaining service levels. Based on the traffic potential estimated in previous chapters the objective of the study is to assess the f inancial viabil ity of developing a Hel iport at Greater Noida.

11.2. Methodology

For working out the Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR), Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) technique has been adopted with project l ife of thirty years and 2014-15 as base year. All costs and benefits are estimated on the base year market prices. To carryout f inancial analysis, two independent streams, one comprising costs and the other relating to revenues l ikely to be accrued, over the duration of project l ife, have been developed. To the extent possible each element of cost/revenues is considered separately. The cost streams include, estimated expenditure to develop the entire proposed faci l ity keeping in view the services required to be offered. Important services proposed to be offered from the heliport can be classif ied under six categories i .e. Landing Facil ity, Parking Facil ity, Maintenance Facil ity, Crew Faci l ity, Operator Facil ity and Passenger Fa ci l ity.

11.3. Capital Cost Estimates

Capital Costs include expenditure to be incurred before commencement of the service, and development of required infrastructural facil it ies. To provide required infrastructural faci l it ies (civil & mechanical), item wise estimated expenditure on important items are summarised in Table 11.1 below:

Table 11.1.

Capital Cost Estimates

Details of Project Componenets/Cost Amount in INR

Pavement Works 16,37,15,048

Building Works 22,00,13,391

Electrical Works 5,11,77,250

Navigation & Communication Equipment 81,72,593


Final DPR 81

Others 1,32,92,348

Detailed Engineering Charges @ 3% 1,36,91,119

Project Management Charges @ 7% 3,19,45,944

Total Project Cost 50,20,07,694

The details of Capital Cost after phasing, inflation and interest charges are detailed in Table 11.2 below:

Table 11. 2.

Details of Completed Project Capital Cost.

Total Cost in INR Crores (2014 estimates) 50.20

2016 2017 2018

Phasing (%) 30% 40% 30%

Phasing (in INR Crores) 15.06 20.08 15.06

Escalation Factor (@5% p.a) 1.05 1.10 1.16

Cost after Escalation in INR Crores 15.81 22.14 17.43

Debt (%) 75% 75% 75%

Equity (%) 25% 25% 25%

Debt - Opening Balance in INR Crores 0 12.57 31.68

Debt - Closing Balance in INR Crores 11.86 29.18 44.76

Interest Charges (@12% p.a. on average of

opening balance & closing balance) in INR Crores

0.71 2.50 4.59

Equity in INR Crores 3.95 5.53 4.36

TOTAL DEBT in 2018 (Closing Bal + Interest

charges) (INR Crores)

49.34

TOTAL EQUITY in 2018 (INR Crores) 13.85

TOTAL PROJECT COST in 2018 (INR Crores) 63.19

11.4. Operation & Maintenance Cost Estimates

11.4.1 Land Lease Charges

Land lease charges is payable on year to year basis, hence, the same has been considered independently as an annual recurring expenditure. The total area that is required for the development of heliport is about 1 5.5acre. As per GNIDA’s land rates for Social Infrastr ucture – Electrical Substation category, the land sale rate is Rs. 4590 per sq.m. The annual lease rate is taken as 1 .5% of the land value, the annual lease value for 15.5 acre land works out to be Rs.


Final DPR 82

42,00,000. However, for analysis purpose a value of R s. 50.0 lacs has been considered.

11.4.2 Repair & Maintenance

The entire civi l and mechanical works would require periodical and operational maintenance, the expenditure towards this end are covered under repair & maintenance of capital assets.

11.4.3 Operating Costs

To operate the proposed faci l ity, regular administrative and other related costs would be incurred by the operating agency, such costs are captured independently in year to year operating expenditure.

11.4.4 Other Costs

Any other unforeseen expenditure at the terminal is covered under other expenses. The norms for various items of operating cost considered for analysis is provided in Table 11.3 below:

Table 11.3.

Estimation of O&M cost

Sl. No. O&M Cost Heads Values

1. Land Lease Charges Rs. 50,00,000 per annum

2. (a) Repair and maintenance of civil assets

(b) Repair and maintenance of mechanical

and electrical equipment’s including Spares

1% of cost of all civil assets

5% of cost of all mechanical and

electrical equipment’s

3. Operating Costs - Watch and Ward Expenses

- Salary for Adminstration - Energy And Housekeeping - Communication - Vehicle and Maintenece - Office Expenses - Miscl. And other expenses

- Rs. 20 thousand/month 4 person

on 24x7 basis - 8 person @ Rs. 1 lakh/ month - Rs. 5 lakh/ month - Rs. 1 lakh/ month - 2 vehicles @ Rs. 25000/momth - Rs. 1 lakh/ month - Rs. 1 lakh/month (includes

maintenance of security equipments)

Total Operating Costs – Rs. 2.48 crore per annum


Final DPR 83

11.5. Revenue Estimates

The proposed Hel iport is l ikely to generate revenue from various services it is designed to offer.

11.5.1. Flight Landing Charges

To arrive at landing charges, although no landing charges are applicable for l ight aircrafts l ike helicopters, because the proposed faci l ity is to be developed stand alone, minimum landing charges applicable for aircraft on per tonne basis have been considered with the average gross weight of helicopter as 5.0 tonne (helicopter weight ranges between 3.0 to 13 tonnes). In the similar manner, terminal navigational faci l ity has been assessed.

11.5.2. Passenger Fees

Passenger Fees are collected for the provisions o f basic passenger amenit ies at the terminal. Fol lowing services are assumed to be developed / offered to maintain the passenger requirement.

Airlines counters

Visitor reception lounge with internet access

Food and beverage - Restaurant and retai l shopp ing

Business centre and conference rooms

A variety of pre-arranged transportation services:

Luxury chauffeur driven vehicles/ Executive private hire/ Cabs

Secured gated customer car parking with VIP drop -off area

Hotel booking service Counter

Sightseeing booking service counter

Metro/ rail booking /reservation counter

ATM machines/ Bank

Rest room for Staff other than Crew

Luggage/baggage Room

To provide essential access to the police and Air ambulance helicopter

services

Advertisement.


Final DPR 84

11.5.3. Aircraft Parking Charges

Using the ongoing practice at IGI Airport, Aircraft Parking Charges at Apron has been estimated after allowing two hours free time. On an average, per f l ight, sixteen hours waiting has been considered of which only fourteen hours are considered to workout overall parking charges.

11.5.4. Hanger Charges

For regular maintenance and parking of aircrafts hangers have been proposed. The annual lease charge for the hanger is taken based on the similar study carr ied out for Rohini heliport with correction for in flation. These are reasonable and the higher value may not be a realist ic value.

11.5.5. Crew Retiring Rooms

Keeping in view the type of service and the requirement of crew at a short notice, appropriate resting facil it ies for crew have been proposed. A lump sum amount has been designated as revenue from such services.

11.5.6. Vehicle Parking Charges

On an average, per f l ight, two vehicles in parking has been considered to workout overall vehicle parking charges.

11.5.7. Commercial Activities

Certain areas wil l be earmarked to develop commercial activit ies such as Restaurants, Banks, and ATM’s etc. and putting up of boards f or advertisements. The planned area allotted for advertisements are four 10*8 ft,six 6*4 ft boards and ten 100 sq.ft. (10ft x 10ft) stal ls . The chargeable rates considered for important services are summarised in Table 11.4 below:

Table 11.4.

Chargeable Rates for various services at proposed Heliport

Particulars Values Units

Flight Landing Charges 764 Rs. Per Flight

Navigation Facility 10 Rs. Per Flight

Passenger Fees 259 Rs. Per Passenger Embark

Helicopter Parking at Apron 150 Rs. Per Flight Per Hour

Hanger Charges 22,50,000 Lump Sum (Rs. per Annum)

Crew Retiring Rooms 15,00,000 Lump Sum(Rs. per Annum)


Final DPR 85

Visitor's parking 125 Rs. Per Vehicle

Commercial activities

- Advertisements

- Stalls

200

100

Rs./Sqft/Month

Rs./Sqft/Month

11.6. Other Financing Parameters

11.6.1. CAPEX Phasing:

The CAPEX phasing as considered for analysis is given in Table 11. 5 below:

Table 11.5.

CAPEX Phasing Plan

YEAR Phasing in %

Year 1 30%

Year 2 40%

Year 3 30%

11.6.2. Inflation:

An escalation of 5.0% in all costs and Tariff is considered to take care of inflation for the entire period.

11.6.3. Other Financing Parameters

Other Financing Parameters are given in Table 11. 6 below:

Table 11.6.

Details of Financing Parameters

Particulars Units Value Remarks

Corporate Tax Rate % 33.99% As per Union Budget 2013

Minimum Alternative Tax Rate % 20.96% As per Union Budget 2013

Cost of debt % 12.0% Based on the Direct Lending Rates

of IIFCL as per Credit Policy, 2012

Cost of Short Term Loan % 10.0% As per standard practice

Cost of equity % 16.0% As per “Response to AERA’s

Consultation Paper No. 32/2011-12

dt. 03 Jan. 2012, on determination

of Aeronautical Tariff in respect of


Final DPR 86

IGI Airport, New Delhi, for the 1st

Regulatory Period(01.04.2009 –

31.03.2014” dated 29th February

2012 by Association of Private

Airport Operators

Depreciation As per norms prescribed in

Companies Act.

Debt: Equity Ratio 75:25 The D/E ratio of 75:25 is taken as

per standard practice.

Weighted Average Cost of

Capital (WACC)

13.0%

Loan term Years 10.0

Moratorium period Years 3.0

Financial Statements a) Profit & Loss statement is as shown in Table 11.7 below:

Table 11.7.

Projected Profit & Loss Statement

(Figures in Rs. Cr.)

2019 2024 2029 2034 2046

Operating Revenues 4.60 7.86 13.91 21.84 55.45

Operation & Maintenance

Costs 3.93 5.02 6.40 8.17 13.98

EBITDA 0.67 2.84 7.51 13.67 41.47

Amortization 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76

EBIT -2.10 0.08 4.74 10.91 38.71

Interest Payments 5.92 3.26 0.30 0.00 0.00

PBT -8.02 -3.18 4.45 10.91 38.71

Corporate tax 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Minimum Alternate Tax 0.00 0.00 0.93 2.29 8.11

Tax Applicable 0.00 0.00 0.93 2.29 8.11

Net income -8.02 -3.18 3.52 8.62 30.60


Final DPR 87

b) Balance Sheet is as shown in Table 11.8 below:

Table 11.8.

Projected Balance Sheet


2019 2024 2029 2034 2046

Assets

Net fixed assets end of

period 49.19 27.42 15.47 8.81 2.62

Cash in hand 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 212.00

Total fixed assets 49.19 27.42 15.47 8.81 214.62

Liabilities

Debt 49.34 24.67 0.00 0.00 0.00

Equity 13.85 13.85 13.85 13.85 13.85

Retained earnings -13.99 -11.10 1.62 -5.03 200.77

Total liabilities & Retained

Earnings 49.19 27.42 15.47 8.81 214.62

Cash Flow Statement is as shown in Table 11. 9 below:

Table 11.9.

Projected Cash Flow Statement


2016 2019 2024 2029 2034 2046

Cash Outflow

Capital Expenditure 15.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Cash Outflow 15.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cash Inflow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

PAT 0.00 -8.02 -3.18 3.52 8.62 30.60

Depreciation 0.00 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.76

Interest Payment 0.00 5.92 3.26 0.30 0.00 0.00

Total Cash Inflow 0.00 0.67 2.84 6.58 11.38 33.36

Net Cash Flow -15.81 0.67 2.84 6.58 11.38 33.36


Final DPR 88

11.7. Investment Analysis

The key f inancial indicators related to the return on i nvestment is shown in Table 11.10 below:

Table 11.10

Key Financial Ratios & Indicators

PARTCULARS Values

Project IRR 8.72%

Project NPV @ 12.0% discount p.a. Rs. -17.99crs

Equity IRR 7.53%

Average Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) 0.37

If the land lease charges are waived off, the key f inancial indicators related to the return on investment is shown in Table 11.1 1 below:

Table 11.11

Key Financial Ratios & Indicators on waiver of land lease charges

PARTCULARS Values

Project IRR 9.57%

Project NPV @ 12.0% discount p.a. Rs. -13.44 crs

Equity IRR 8.57%

Average Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) 0.48

11.8. Capital Expenditure Support

As the project is not f inancially viable by itself, and therefore requires viabil ity funding in terms of f inancial support from the government. Government Support can be as a percentage of Capital cost. The Project IRR and Equity IRR at various amounts of government support is as shown in Table 11.12 below:

Table 11.12

Project IRR & Equity IRR vs Capex Support

Capital Expenditure

Support

Project IRR

Equity IRR

20% 10.07% 9.28%

30% 10.91% 10.38%


Final DPR 89

40% 11.91% 11.69%

50% 13.13% 13.32%

60% 14.69% 15.44%

70% 16.83% 18.41%

80% 20.12% 23.14%

It can be seen from table 11.12 above that at 50% Capital Support, the Project IRR is greater than cost of funds (WACC = 13.0%). Another option is to waiver the land lease charges. The Project IRR and Equity IRR at various amounts of government support on waiver of land lease charges is as shown in Table 11.13 below:

Table 11.13.

Project IRR & Equity IRR vs Capex Support on waiver of land lease charges

Capital Expenditure

Support

Project IRR

Equity IRR

20% 11.04% 10.51%

30% 11.95% 11.73%

40% 13.04% 13.22%

50% 14.39% 15.10%

60% 16.14% 17.60%

70% 18.59% 21.26%

80% 22.48% 27.53%

It can be seen from table 11.13 above that in case of land lease charges are waived off, at 40% Capital Support, the Project IRR is greater than cost of funds (WACC = 13.0%).

11.9. User Development Fees

Another alternative to make project f inancially viable is to charge a User Development Fee. User Development Fee (“UDF”). UDF is calculated to assure a certain minimum assured return on the investment. Since, the “minimum assured return” has not been f inalized different values of UDF vs Capital support required to generate Project IRR more than WACC (13.00%) are worked out details of which are given in Table 11.14.


Final DPR 90

Table 11. 14

Project IRR vs UDF and Capital Support (with land lease charges)

UD

F (

Rs.

/Pass

enger

Em

bark

)

Capital Support (% of Capital Cost)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

0 8.72% 9.35% 10.07% 10.91% 11.91% 13.13%

50 9.39% 10.04% 10.79% 11.67% 12.71% 14.00%

100 10.02% 10.70% 11.48% 12.39% 13.48% 14.82%

150 10.62% 11.32% 12.13% 13.07% 14.21% 15.61%

200 11.19% 11.92% 12.75% 13.73% 14.91% 16.37%

250 11.74% 12.49% 13.35% 14.36% 15.58% 17.11%

300 12.26% 13.03% 13.92% 14.97% 16.23% 17.82%

350 12.77% 13.56% 14.48% 15.56% 16.86% 18.50%

400 13.26% 14.07% 15.01% 16.12% 17.47% 19.16%

As can be seen from Table 11.14 above, a minimum of Rs. 400/Passenger Embark as UDF needs to be charged to make the project f inancially viable with no Capex support. Alternatively a minimum of 50% of Capital support is to be provided to make project f inancial ly viable with no UDF. Also, a scenario with no land lease charges is worked out details of which are given in Table 11.15.

Table 11. 15

Project IRR vs UDF and Capital Support (with out land lease charges)

UD

F (

Rs.

/Pass

enger

Em

bark

)

Capital Support (% of Capital Cost)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

0 9.57% 10.25% 11.04% 11.95% 13.04%

50 10.21% 10.91% 11.72% 12.67% 13.81%

100 10.81% 11.54% 12.38% 13.36% 14.55%

150 11.39% 12.14% 13.00% 14.02% 15.25%

200 11.94% 12.71% 13.60% 14.65% 15.93%

250 12.47% 13.26% 14.18% 15.27% 16.58%

300 12.97% 13.79% 14.74% 15.85% 17.21%

350 13.46% 14.30% 15.27% 16.42% 17.82%

400 13.94% 14.80% 15.79% 16.97% 18.41%

As can be seen from Table 11.15 above, a minimum of Rs. 350/Passenger Embark as UDF needs to be charged to make the project f inancially viable with no Capex support. Alternatively a minimum of 40% of Capital support is to be provided to make project f inancial ly viable with no UDF.


Final DPR 91

11.10. Conclusion

From the Table 11.10 and 11.11, it is concluded that the project is not f inancially viable by itself as Project IRR is less than the cost of funds. From table 11.12 and 11.13, it can be concluded that to make the project f inancially viable at least 50% of capital cost in the form of Capex Support is required which can be reduced to 40% in case the land lease charges are waived off. Another option to make project f inancial ly viable is to charge User Development Fee. The project is f inancially viable at UDF of Rs. 400 without any capital support. The minimum UDF required to make the project f inancially viable without any capital support is Rs. 350 in case land lease charges are waived off.

*****


Final DPR 92

12. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CONCLUSIONS

12.1 General

This chapter dwells on the avai lable options for the implementation of the project.

12.2 Project Environment

The conditions in Greater NOIDA are reckoned as construction friendly and there is boom in the construction industry in the NCR region. The area around the site is fully developed and coming up of heliport at this place will provide large scale development of the whole area .

The proposed development being a green field situation there is no restriction on the contractor as is faced on a functional airport. However, Normal discipline which is required for working in municipal l imits shall be applicable.

12.3 Contractual Practice

12.3.1 Contract packaging

The estimated cost not being very signif icant as compared to the projects avai lable in the industry consultants are of the opinion that entire work of construction and Bids should be clubbed under single package. This approach may attract resourceful contractor who can deliver the project in t ime with required quality. The package covers pavements (airf ield and roads) storm water drainage and security fence (operational and area fence) Airf ield l ighting bulk power supply and external l ighting, Buildings and services, Miscellaneous works etc .

12.3.2 Choice of Bid process

The following Bid process choices are relevant to this project in a conventional methodology are:


Final DPR 93

Open Bidding

Restricted Bidding

Direct negotiation

The choice of Bid method shall be governed on the basis of cost and circumstances of the Bid. The Bid process in India for public funded projects is generally done through open bidding owner entity in such case, aims at, invit ing competition among proven, capable and appropriately resourced Contractors, as these works are of complex nature and the procuring agency intends to get the ‘best value for money’ through a sizable competition without compromising on experience and capability of the contractors. For open bidding the project with this approach shall pass through fol lowing stages:

Activity No.

Stage Duration* Imperative Remarks

1 Detailed Engineering Design & Detai led Estimates

3 months To get the constructional detail ing and get Itemised Bil l of Quantity

2 Approval & Fund allocation

1 month

3 EIA Clearance 12 months

As per environment act

This activity should be started paral lel with activity no 1

4 Bid Process 3 months To select the contractor

Bids to be invited and evaluated in two packet system

5 Construction 9 months

6 Commissioning 3 months


Final DPR 94

*The duration given above are drawn on the basis of consultant’s experience in similar projects. It may be observed that the above schedule is applicable to open bidding system if we go for restricted bidding we can at best save one and half months time and if we go for direct negotiat ion we can save three months time. Looking at the target even direct negotiation may also not deliver the project in t ime. Consultant realized that there is a need to look for innovative solution in this case. Answer to the situation possibly l ies in a collaborative approach where design responsibi l ity is also given to the contractor and the decisions/ approvals are accomplished in a collaborative manner under an EPC environment . The approach envisage that the contractor would be required to base his pricing on the reference design and take the responsibil ity of detai l ing the design and construction under the supervision of the engineer nominated by the employer. Under this approach a proven, capable and appropriately resourced Contractor can be identif ied and asked to quote. The responsibil ity such as getting the mandatory clearances shall also be given to the contractor. This approach needs further deliberations amongst all concern to eliminate tentativeness. With this approach, signif icant period of design and bid process stage can be reduced and soft commissioning of the facil ity can be achieved with appropriate priorit ization

12.4 Conclusions

Following conclusions are drawn based on the feasibil ity study:

The site No. I II is found to be most suitable for development of Heliport , amongst the three sites shown by GNIDA .

The avai lable land is adequate to support basic functionalit ies.

Having studied the land features and the surrounding obstructions , it is concluded that the site is suitable to support day VFR Hel icopter operations.

Due to current regulations, the night landing at this heliport will not be possible. Moreover the land is also not sufficient for providing night landing facil it ies.


Final DPR 95

The entire built up area at site is proposed to be raised , making the formation level of FATO as 204.50m. This is done in order to get a clearance of 4m height in case a truck is parked on the highway at centre l ine of approach path.

The high tension cable-Grid l ine which l ies within the approach cone on the eastern side, will have to be marked with Obstruction Lighting and standard pattern painting.

The proposed heliport is located inside the Control Zone of IGI Airport, Delhi, and thus prior clearance from MoEF, Airports Authority of India and coordination, MoD, MOCA, permission & positive control of ATC, IGI Airport for operations needs to be coordinated in longer run.

The traffic study reveals that there is a s izable demand .

The Financial appraisal reveals that , to make the project f inancially viable , at least 50% of capital cost in the form of Capex Support is required which can be reduced to 40% in case the land lease charges are waived off.

Another option to make project f inancially viable is to charge User

Development Fee. The project is f inancially viable at UDF of Rs. 400 without

any capital support. The minimum UDF required to make the project

f inancially viable without any capital support is Rs. 350 in case land lease

charges are waived off.

*****


Final DPR 96

13. DRAWINGS

13.1 Layout Plan


Final DPR 97

13.2 Obstacle Limitation Plan


Final DPR 98

13.3 Terminal Building Plan


Final DPR 99

13.4 ATC Tower Plan


Final DPR 100

13.5 Fire Station Plan

U

.

G

.

T

A

N

K

A

T

C

T

O

W

E

R

GNIDA

Proposed Layout Plan

GREATER NOIDA HELIPORT

X = 748439.2508Y = 3148464.6947

GNIDA

Obstacle Limitation plan

GREATER NOIDA HELIPORT

DEPARTURECONCOURSE

CITY SIDE

AIR SIDE

DW1

DW1

DW1

1 2 3

A

B

C

DW1

2000

2000

EXITENTRY

ENTRYEXIT

P.LVL. +202

T=300

R=150R=150

DFMD

TAB

LEDEPARTURE /ARRIVAL

CONCOURSE

DEPARTURE HOLD11160x7290

ARRIVAL HALL5970X7830

SECURITYCHECK

CHECK INCOUNTER

BEL

Tx-

ray

SECURITY3500x3000

D2

AIRLINEBOOKING3500x2290

D2

TOILET2000x2000

RETAIL1350x2000

D2

2100

3000

3000

4475

T=300

4475

T=300

R=150

R=150

3000

3000

4475

T=300

4475

VIP LOUNGE3500x3550

COFFEE SHOP3000x1500

ATM / UTILITY3000x1500

AIRPORTMANAGER3000x2745

TOILET (G)3000X1500

TAXIBOOKING3000x2250

ELEC. &UPS ROOM3000x3000

D2

AIRPORTMANAGER

STAFF3000x3000

D2

AL/GLASSPARTITION

AL/GLASSPARTITION

AL/GLASSPARTITION

AL/GLASSPARTITION

AL/GLASSPARTITION

W.COOLER

W.C

OO

LER

TOILET (L)3000X1500

TOILET (H)3000X1625

TOILET (L)3000x1500

TOILET (G)2430x1500

D2

D2

D2

D3

D3

D3 D3

D1

D3

D3

D3

D3

D3

P.LVL. +202

P.LVL. +202

P.LVL. +202

RETAIL1350x2000

600

300

4700

1000

600

DEPARTURE HOLD

SECTION Y-Y

ARRIVAL HALL

ELEC. &UPS ROOM

TOILET(G)

(A)-FRONT ELEVATION

4700

AL/GLASSPARTITION

30

00

25

00

21

00

40

00

TOILET(L)

40mm thk. floor fin.110mm thk.p.c.c150mm thk.sand filling

30

0

G.L. ±00

P.L. +600

STEEL COLUMN

STEEL COLUMN STEEL COLUMN

CEILING AS /SPEC.

DEPARTURE HOLD

AL/GLASSPARTITION

30

00

40

00

CITY SIDEAIR SIDE

600

300

4700

DEPARTURECONCOURSE

SECTION X-X

(B)-SIDE ELEVATION

G.L. ±00

P.L. +600

STEEL COLUMN

STEEL COLUMN

STEEL COLUMN

40mm thk. floor fin.110mm thk.p.c.c150mm thk.sand filling

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

YY

X

X

6300

6300

G.L. ±00

P.L. +600

G.L. ±00

P.L. +600

6300

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

DN

UP

LIFT WELL

1800X1700

TECH. BLOCK

MET OFFICE

3300x3600 3300x3600

GROUND FLOOR PLAN

TOILET

1800X1700

(6 persons)

DN

DN

UP

LIFT WELL

1800X1700

6300x6330

CONTROL ROOM

(6 persons)

(LVL+9600)

(-3300)

PROJ. ABOVE

UP

MACHINE RM

BASEMENT PLAN

(LVL+600)

ELEVATION A (FROM RUNWAY SIDE)

ROOF PLAN

DN

UP

LIFT WELL

1800X1700

TECH. BLOCK

MET OFFICE

3300x3600 3300x3600

1800X1700

(6 persons)

DN

TOILET

TOILET

FIRST FLOOR

TOILET

1800X1700

D1

D2 D2

D1

D3

D1

D2 D2

D1

D3

D1

D3

D1

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

ELEVATION-B

A

A

150

STEEL RAILING

1000 HIGH STAINLESS

1000 WIDE GALLERY

10

00

W

ID

E G

AL

LE

RY

10

00

W

ID

E G

AL

LE

RY

TRAP DOOR

(LVL+13240)

LVL. +3.0

LVL. +5.30 BOTTOM OF BEAM

60

02

40

22

30

01

80

0

234

A

B

C

50

00

50

00

500050006500

10

00

0

1

5000

26500

5000

56

FRONT ELEVATION

FIRE CONTROL STN.

6385X9770

AMBULANCE

4770X9770

JEEP

4770X9770

3 2 1

A

B

C

50

00

50

00

5000 50006500

10

00

0

4

5000

DRIVERS CANTEEN

4770X3200

STAFF REST ROOM

4770X3150

D1

KITCHEN

3455X1755

D1

D1

D1

26500

STORE ROOM

4770X4770

D1

D1

FOAM STORE

4770X4770

5000

567

50

230

16

35

15

00

16

35

230

17

10

13

50

17

10

23

0

230 1635 1500 1635

230

1200

115

3455 230

230 1635 1500 1635 230

Lvl.+0.60

90

0

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

W1

±0.00 N.G.L.

+0.600 PLINTH LEVEL

LVL. +7.100 TOP OF BEAM

LVL. +3.0


60

02

40

02

30

01

80

0

+0.600 PLINTH LEVEL


LVL. +3.0


60

02

40

02

30

01

80

0

±0.00 N.G.L.

+0.600 PLINTH LEVEL


LVL. +3.0


60

02

40

02

30

01

80

0

±0.00 N.G.L.

+0.600 PLINTH LEVEL


15

00

15

00

3000

300

D1

TOILET

2100X1320

STORE

1540X1320

D2

D2

modified final project report for development...

Documents