AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE PENSACOLA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE

PENSACOLA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #4 December 19, 2017

Agenda

» Introduction » Alternatives Evaluation

– Methodology – Airside – Terminal – Curbside – Parking – General Aviation – Cargo

» Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps

Agenda

» Introduction » Alternatives Evaluation

– Methodology – Airside – Terminal – Curbside – Parking – General Aviation – Cargo

» Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps

Master Plan Purpose

» Strategic vision/blueprint for development » Balances needs of Airport, community, environment » Airport Layout Plan (ALP) required to

• btain grants

» Helps improve financial sustainability

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

» Facilitate Public Involvement Program » Advisory in nature » Airport maintains authority and responsibility of decisions » Assess impact of recommendations on Airport operations and Stakeholder facilities

5

Master Plan Process

6

Investigative Solutions Implementation

Inventory Forecasts Facility Requirements Development Alternatives Program Implementation Plan Airport Layout Plan Master Plan Report

= TAC Meeting

Today’s Discussion

Agenda

» Introduction » Alternatives Evaluation

– Methodology – Airside – Terminal – Curbside – Parking – General Aviation – Cargo

» Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps

Evaluation Goals

8

SAFETY GOAL

Conform to industry regulations and guidelines

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY GOAL

Accommodate short-term (2020), intermediate- term (2025), and long-term (2035) demand

FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY GOAL

Maintain fiscal sustainability

STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENT GOAL

Promote highest and best land use

ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS GOAL

Further environmental awareness

ECONOMIC GROWTH GOAL

Facilitate regional economic growth through airport development and operation

Alternatives Evaluation Methodology

» Evaluation Inputs

– Technical analysis – Stakeholder feedback

» Evaluation Process

– Alternatives evaluated against one another using Goals/Criteria – Evaluation inputs considered as “Pro” or “Con” – Performance measured on scale of 1-5 for each applicable Criterion – Matrix reports summation of evaluation scores

» Selection of Recommended Alternative

– Based on the resulting evaluation score – Selection of whole alternatives or composite of best elements from multiple alternatives

9

Alternatives Evaluation Example

10

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 SAFETY

Conform to industry regulations and guidelines

5.00 4.50 STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENT

Promote highest and best land use

4.00 3.50 OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Accommodate short-term (2020), intermediate-term (2025), and long-term (2035) demand

4.00 4.40 ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

Further environmental awareness

2.00 4.75 FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY

Maintain fiscal sustainability

3.33 4.33 ECONOMIC GROWTH

Facilitate regional economic growth through airport development and operation

n/a n/a TOTAL SCORE 18.33 21.98 MAXIMUM SCORE 25 25

Maximum Score Based

• n Applicable Goals

Total Score for Alternative Evaluation Goals Goal Score Reflects Criteria Average

• Max Score is 5

N/A Score for Goals/Criteria Not Applicable to Alternative Alternative 2 Performs Better

SCORING RUBRIC 5 - Alternative Fully Responds to Criterion/Goal 4 - Alternative Largely Responds to Criterion/Goal 3 - Alternative Partially Responds to Criterion/Goal 2 - Alternative Minimally Responds to Criterion/Goal 1 - Alternative Does Not Responds to Criterion/Goal

Agenda

» Introduction » Alternatives Evaluation

– Methodology – Airside – Terminal – Curbside – Parking – General Aviation – Cargo

» Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps

12

Airside Alternative 1

– ROM Cost - $42.60M

(Most Expensive)

+ Each Rwy End served by Dual Parallel Twys – MALSR May Be Costly Due to Terrain – Twy Extension Impacts Park + Twy Extension Provides Greater Utility for Departures + Paved Airside Service Road Results in Contiguous Service Road Network

Economic Growth Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Env Awareness

+ PBN/RNAV Approach has Minimal Noise Impacts to Sensitive Areas – Airside Service Road Utility Questionable because of ILS Critical Area Impact

13

Airside Alternative 2

– Rwy Crossing or Intersection Dep Req. for Rwy 8 From Twy D + ROM Cost - $41.11M

(Least Expensive)

+ ASR Relocated to Site with Limited Utility as Aeronautical Development – Airside Service Road Not Contiguous Prevents Circumnavigation – PBN/RNAV Approach has Potential Noise Impacts to Sensitive Areas + ASR Relocation Opens Area for Revenue Generating Development

Economic Growth Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Env Awareness

+ Greater Utility for Rwy 8 PBN/RNAV Approach (compared to Alt 1) – MALSR May Require Easements

Airside Alternatives Evaluation Summary

14

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 SAFETY

Conform to industry regulations and guidelines

5.00 4.50 STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENT

Promote highest and best land use

3.00 5.00 OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Accommodate short-term (2020), intermediate-term (2025), and long-term (2035) demand

5.00 4.40 ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

Further environmental awareness

4.50 3.50 FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY

Maintain fiscal sustainability

4.00 4.67 ECONOMIC GROWTH

Facilitate regional economic growth through airport development and operation

5.00 5.00 TOTAL SCORE 26.50 27.07 MAXIMUM SCORE 30 30

SCORING RUBRIC 5 - Alternative Fully Responds to Criterion/Goal 4 - Alternative Largely Responds to Criterion/Goal 3 - Alternative Partially Responds to Criterion/Goal 2 - Alternative Minimally Responds to Criterion/Goal 1 - Alternative Does Not Responds to Criterion/Goal

Recommended Airside Development

15

Alt 1 Alt 2 Relocated ASR Taxiway D Extended Without Off-Airport Impacts Paved Airside Perimeter Rd Rwy 8 PBN/RNAV Approach

(Tentative Primary Option Obstruction Analysis Outstanding)

Retain Twy C Retain Twy D1 Rwy 26 PBN/RNAV Approach

(Secondary Option Obstruction Analysis Outstanding)

Agenda

» Introduction » Alternatives Evaluation

– Methodology – Airside – Terminal – Curbside – Parking – General Aviation – Cargo

» Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps

17

Terminal Alternative 1

ROM Cost - $22.94M + ROM Cost - $22.94M

(Least Expensive)

– Lacks Improvement to Bag Claim and Rental Car Lobbies + Minimal Expansion Minimizes Costs – No Improvements to Post-Security Concessions

Lower Level Upper Level

– Lacks Improvement Ticket Lobby

Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Economic Growth Env Awareness

18

Terminal Alternative 2

+ ROM Cost - $37.61M

(Relative Moderate Cost) Lower Level Upper Level

+ Increased Rev. Generation with Post-Security Concession Expansion + Improvements to Ticket Lobby Enhances Passenger Flow and LOS

Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Economic Growth Env Awareness

+ Relocated ATOs to Mezzanine Enhances Space Utilization – Lacks Improvement to Bag Claim and Rental Car Lobbies

19

Terminal Alternative 3

+ ROM Cost - $39.73M

(Relative Moderate Cost) Lower Level Upper Level

– Split Baggage Make-up Area

Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Economic Growth Env Awareness

+ Increased Rev. Generation with Post-Security Concession Expansion + Expansion Enhances Passenger Flow and LOS + New Office Space over Bag Claim Lobby Enhances Space Utilization + Improvements to Ticket Lobby Enhances Passenger Flow and LOS

20

Terminal Alternative 4

– ROM Cost - $43.76M

(Most Expensive) Lower Level Upper Level Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Economic Growth Env Awareness

+ Increased Rev. Generation with Post-Security Concession Expansion + Balanced/Symmetrical Configuration Supports Efficient Passenger Flow + Relocated ATOs to Mezzanine Enhances Space Utilization + Expansion Enhances Passenger Flow and LOS + Improvements to Ticket Lobby Enhances Passenger Flow and LOS

Terminal Alternatives Evaluation Summary

21

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 SAFETY

Conform to industry regulations and guidelines

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENT

Promote highest and best land use

n/a n/a n/a n/a OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Accommodate short-term (2020), intermediate-term (2025), and long-term (2035) demand

2.00 4.75 4.25 5.00 ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

Further environmental awareness

n/a n/a n/a n/a FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY

Maintain fiscal sustainability

4.00 4.00 3.33 2.67 ECONOMIC GROWTH

Facilitate regional economic growth through airport development and operation

2.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 TOTAL SCORE 13.00 17.75 16.58 17.67 MAXIMUM SCORE 20 20 20 20

SCORING RUBRIC 5 - Alternative Fully Responds to Criterion/Goal 4 - Alternative Largely Responds to Criterion/Goal 3 - Alternative Partially Responds to Criterion/Goal 2 - Alternative Minimally Responds to Criterion/Goal 1 - Alternative Does Not Responds to Criterion/Goal

Recommended Terminal Development

22

Alt 1 Upper Level Alt 2 Upper Level Alt 3 Upper Level Alt 4 Upper Level

Lower Level Bag Make-up Expansion Ticket Lobby and Mezzanine Expansion Bag Claim, Rental Car Lobbies and Mezzanine Expansion

Agenda

» Introduction » Alternatives Evaluation

– Methodology – Airside – Terminal – Curbside – Parking – General Aviation – Cargo

» Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps

Terminal Curbside Alternative 1

24

+ ROM Cost - $0.88M

(Least Expensive)

+ 5 Inner Lanes More Efficient (compared to Alt 2) + Two Pedestrian Paths Preserved + Greater Reduction of Idling Times of Vehicles (compared to Alt 2) – Odd Through Lane Movement for Large Commercial Vehicles

Economic Growth Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Env Awareness

Terminal Curbside Alternative 2

25

– ROM Cost - $1.12M

(Most Expensive) Economic Growth Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Env Awareness

– 4 Inner Lanes Less Efficient (compared to Alt 1) – Pedestrian Access to Garage Limited to Overhead Walkway

Curbside Alternatives Evaluation Summary

26

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 SAFETY

Conform to industry regulations and guidelines

4.00 4.00 STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENT

Promote highest and best land use

n/a n/a OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Accommodate short-term (2020), intermediate-term (2025), and long-term (2035) demand

4.60 3.40 ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

Further environmental awareness

4.50 4.00 FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY

Maintain fiscal sustainability

4.50 4.50 ECONOMIC GROWTH

Facilitate regional economic growth through airport development and operation

n/a n/a TOTAL SCORE 17.60 15.90 MAXIMUM SCORE 20 20

SCORING RUBRIC 5 - Alternative Fully Responds to Criterion/Goal 4 - Alternative Largely Responds to Criterion/Goal 3 - Alternative Partially Responds to Criterion/Goal 2 - Alternative Minimally Responds to Criterion/Goal 1 - Alternative Does Not Responds to Criterion/Goal

Recommended Curbside Development

27

Alt 1 Alt 2

Agenda

» Introduction » Alternatives Evaluation

– Methodology – Airside – Terminal – Curbside – Parking – General Aviation – Cargo

» Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps

Parking Alternative 1

29

+ Parking Garage is an “Alternative Method” – Parking Garage is Fixed Commitment and Less Flexible than Surface Lots + Less Noise from Parking Garage than Surface Lots – ROM Cost - $27.77M

(Most Expensive)

– Greater Expansion of Impermeable Surface (compared to Alt 2) + Garage Increases Supply of Premium Parking Options and Increases Revenue Generation Potential

Economic Growth Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Env Awareness

Parking Alternative 2

30

– More Pedestrian Traffic through Parking Lots – Land Uses of Surface Lots lacks Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses – Conversion from Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical Use Discouraged – Farthest Lots May Require Shuttles + Future Opportunity to Transform to Parking Garage Remains – Surface Lots Lack Efficiency for Users + ROM Cost - $2.44M

(Least Expensive) Economic Growth Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Env Awareness

Parking Alternatives Evaluation Summary

31

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 SAFETY

Conform to industry regulations and guidelines

5.00 4.00 STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENT

Promote highest and best land use

4.50 3.00 OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Accommodate short-term (2020), intermediate-term (2025), and long-term (2035) demand

4.40 4.00 ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

Further environmental awareness

5.00 3.67 FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY

Maintain fiscal sustainability

3.00 4.33 ECONOMIC GROWTH

Facilitate regional economic growth through airport development and operation

n/a n/a TOTAL SCORE 21.90 19.00 MAXIMUM SCORE 25 25

SCORING RUBRIC 5 - Alternative Fully Responds to Criterion/Goal 4 - Alternative Largely Responds to Criterion/Goal 3 - Alternative Partially Responds to Criterion/Goal 2 - Alternative Minimally Responds to Criterion/Goal 1 - Alternative Does Not Responds to Criterion/Goal

Recommended Parking Development

32

Alt 1 Alt 2

Agenda

» Introduction » Alternatives Evaluation

– Methodology – Airside – Terminal – Curbside – Parking – General Aviation – Cargo

» Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps

General Aviation Alternative 1

34

– ROM Cost - $24.59M

(Most Expensive)

+ GA Fuel Farm May Encourage 3rd Party Expansion + Consolidated T-Hangar Expansion – Layout Requires More Twy Development + Helicopter Operation Relocated with Minimal New Development – Relocated Helicopter Apron Displaces Fixed Wing Aircraft Parking + GA Fuel Farm Enhances Efficiency for All GA Users – Layout Does Not Support Efficient Westward Expansion Due to Challenging Landside Access + CBP Can Utilize Existing Apron + Fuel Farm Location Reduces Vehicle Trips and Traffic – Greatest Potential to Affect Biological Resources

Economic Growth Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Env Awareness

– Challenges Related to the Integration of Fixed Wing and Rotor-Wing Aircraft

General Aviation Alternative 2

35

+ ROM Cost - $23.53M

(Moderate Relative Cost)

– Corporate Hangar Development Area requires Access Roadway Connection – Lack of Fuel Farm Reduces GA Efficiency and LOS + Layout Supports Continued Southward Expansion

Economic Growth Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Env Awareness

+ Helicopter Operation Relocated with Minimal New Development – Relocated Helicopter Apron Displaces Fixed Wing Aircraft Parking – Challenges Related to the Integration of Fixed Wing and Rotor-Wing Aircraft + Layout Requires Minimal New Twy Development + Consolidated T-Hangar Expansion + CBP Can Utilize Existing Apron

General Aviation Alternative 3

36

+ ROM Cost - $23.36M

(Least Expensive)

– Self-Service Fuel Station Not Best Use for Site and Poor Proximity to T-Hangars – CBP Requires Construction of New Apron + Helicopter Apron does not Impact Existing Apron + Helicopters located Farther from Noise Sensitive Land Uses (compared to Alts 1+2) + Least Potential to Affect Biological Resources + Self-Service Fueling Results in Traffic Minimal Impacts

Economic Growth Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Env Awareness

+ Self-Service Fueling Enhances Efficiency for AvGas Users – Helicopter Parking Requires Construction of New Apron + Layout Supports Continued Southward Expansion

General Aviation Alternatives Evaluation Summary

37

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 SAFETY

Conform to industry regulations and guidelines

4.50 4.50 5.00 STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENT

Promote highest and best land use

5.00 5.00 3.50 OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Accommodate short-term (2020), intermediate-term (2025), and long- term (2035) demand

4.00 3.75 4.00 ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

Further environmental awareness

3.50 4.00 5.00 FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY

Maintain fiscal sustainability

5.00 4.00 4.00 ECONOMIC GROWTH

Facilitate regional economic growth through airport development and

• peration

5.00 5.00 5.00 TOTAL SCORE 27.00 26.25 26.50 MAXIMUM SCORE 30 30 30

SCORING RUBRIC 5 - Alternative Fully Responds to Criterion/Goal 4 - Alternative Largely Responds to Criterion/Goal 3 - Alternative Partially Responds to Criterion/Goal 2 - Alternative Minimally Responds to Criterion/Goal 1 - Alternative Does Not Responds to Criterion/Goal

Alt 3

Recommended GA Development

38

Alt 1 Alt 2 New Helicopter Apron (long-term) GA Fuel Farm Repurpose Existing Apron for Helicopters (near-term) T-Hangar Expansion CBP and Corporate GA Development Self-Service Fuel Station (alternate location)

Agenda

» Introduction » Alternatives Evaluation

– Methodology – Airside – Terminal – Curbside – Parking – General Aviation – Cargo

» Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps

Air Cargo Alternative 1

40

+ Proximate to Minimal Non- Compatible Land Uses + Highest and Best Land Use On- Airport for Cargo Development – Requires Removal of Scattered Trees and Vegetation – ROM Cost - $24.68M

(Most Expensive)

+ Tippin Ave Capable

• f Accommodating

Large Truck Traffic + Space Adjacent to Site Available for Complimentary Development

Economic Growth Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Env Awareness

+ Good Access to Interstate Highways

Air Cargo Alternative 2

41

– May require the Relocation of ASR – Site More Suitable for Small Scale Development to due Proximity to Residences – Interrupts Airside Service Road – Significant Roadway Infrastructure needed – Potential Challenges with Aircraft Pushback Operations + No New Twys Required – Proximate to Noise Sensitive Land Use – Requires Moderate Removal of Trees and Vegetation – Poor Access to Interstate Highways – Distance to Main Roadway May Discourage Additional Development + Space Adjacent to Site Remains Available for Complimentary Uses + ROM Cost - $23.98M

(Moderate Relative Cost) Economic Growth Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Env Awareness

– Spanish Trail Poor Capability of Accommodating Large Truck Traffic

Air Cargo Alternative 3

42

+ ROM Cost - $23.67M

(Least Expensive)

– Impacts Area Best Suited for GA Development – Requires Removal of the Greatest Amount of Trees and Vegetation + Moderate Access to Interstate Highways

Economic Growth Safety Operational Efficiency Fiscal Sustainability Land Management Env Awareness

+ Summit Blvd Capable

• f Accommodating

Large Truck Traffic

Cargo Alternatives Evaluation Summary

43

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 SAFETY

Conform to industry regulations and guidelines

5.00 4.50 5.00 STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENT

Promote highest and best land use

5.00 2.50 3.50 OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Accommodate short-term (2020), intermediate-term (2025), and long- term (2035) demand

5.00 3.67 4.33 ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS

Further environmental awareness

4.50 2.00 3.00 FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY

Maintain fiscal sustainability

4.67 5.00 5.00 ECONOMIC GROWTH

Facilitate regional economic growth through airport development and

• peration

5.00 2.50 4.50 TOTAL SCORE 29.17 20.17 25.33 MAXIMUM SCORE 30 30 30

SCORING RUBRIC 5 - Alternative Fully Responds to Criterion/Goal 4 - Alternative Largely Responds to Criterion/Goal 3 - Alternative Partially Responds to Criterion/Goal 2 - Alternative Minimally Responds to Criterion/Goal 1 - Alternative Does Not Responds to Criterion/Goal

Alt 3

Recommended Cargo Development

44

Alt 1 Alt 2 Viable Secondary Development Option Not Viable Development Option Primary Development Option

Agenda

» Introduction » Alternatives Evaluation

– Methodology – Airside – Terminal – Curbside – Parking – General Aviation – Cargo

» Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps

46

Recommended Development Alternative

47

Recommended Development Alternative – South

48

Recommended Development Alternative – North

49

Recommended Terminal Alternative

Lower Level Upper Level

50

Recommended Future Land Use Plan

Agenda

» Introduction » Alternatives Evaluation

– Methodology – Airside – Terminal – Curbside – Parking – General Aviation – Cargo

» Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps

Master Plan Process

52

= TAC Meeting

Investigative Solutions Implementation

Inventory Forecasts Facility Requirements Development Alternatives Program Implementation Plan Airport Layout Plan Master Plan Report

Inventory Forecast Facility Requirements Alternatives Implementation Documentation

53

Mar

In Progress

May Sep Nov Jul

In Progress

Mar

Project Schedule

Complete Complete Complete Complete

May Jul Jan Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul 2016 2017 2018

QUESTIONS?

December 19, 2017