AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE...–Cargo » Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps. Terminal...

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


– Airside

– Terminal

– Curbside

– Parking


– Cargo


» Next Steps

Master Plan Purpose

» Strategic vision/blueprint for

development

» Balances needs of Airport, community,

environment

» Airport Layout Plan (ALP) required to

obtain 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


– Airside

– Terminal

– Curbside

– Parking


– Cargo


» Next Steps

Evaluation Goals

8

SAFETY GOALConform to industry regulations and guidelines

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY GOAL Accommodate short-term (2020), intermediate-

term (2025), and long-term (2035) demand

FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY GOALMaintain fiscal sustainability

STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENT GOALPromote highest and best land use

ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS GOALFurther environmental awareness

ECONOMIC GROWTH GOALFacilitate 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

SAFETYConform to industry regulations and guidelines

5.00 4.50

STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENTPromote highest and best land use

4.00 3.50

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

4.00 4.40

ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESSFurther environmental awareness

2.00 4.75

FISCAL SUSTAINABILITYMaintain fiscal sustainability

3.33 4.33

ECONOMIC GROWTHFacilitate 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 on Applicable Goals

Total Score for Alternative

EvaluationGoals

Goal Score Reflects Criteria Average

- Max Score is 5

N/A Score for Goals/Criteria Not

Applicable to Alternative

Alternative 2 Performs Better

SCORING RUBRIC5 - Alternative Fully Responds to Criterion/Goal4 - Alternative Largely Responds to Criterion/Goal3 - Alternative Partially Responds to Criterion/Goal2 - Alternative Minimally Responds to Criterion/Goal1 - Alternative Does Not Responds to Criterion/Goal

Agenda

» Introduction


– Airside

– Terminal

– Curbside

– Parking


– Cargo


» 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



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



5.00 4.50


3.00 5.00


5.00 4.40


4.50 3.50


4.00 4.67


5.00 5.00


MAXIMUM SCORE 30 30SCORING RUBRIC

5 - Alternative Fully Responds to Criterion/Goal4 - Alternative Largely Responds to Criterion/Goal3 - Alternative Partially Responds to Criterion/Goal2 - Alternative Minimally Responds to Criterion/Goal1 - 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


– Airside

– Terminal

– Curbside

– Parking


– Cargo


» 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



Land Management

Economic Growth

Env Awareness

18

Terminal Alternative 2 + ROM Cost - $37.61M(Relative Moderate Cost)


+ Increased Rev. Generation with Post-Security

Concession Expansion+ Improvements to Ticket Lobby Enhances

Passenger Flow and LOS

Safety



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)


– Split Baggage Make-up Area

Safety



Land Management

Economic Growth

Env Awareness


Concession Expansion

+ Expansion Enhances Passenger Flow and LOS

+ New Office Space over Bag Claim Lobby Enhances

Space Utilization

+ Improvements to Ticket Lobby Enhances


20

Terminal Alternative 4 – ROM Cost - $43.76M(Most Expensive)


Safety



Land Management

Economic Growth

Env Awareness


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


Terminal Alternatives Evaluation Summary

21

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4


5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00


n/a n/a n/a n/a


2.00 4.75 4.25 5.00


n/a n/a n/a n/a


4.00 4.00 3.33 2.67


2.00 4.00 4.00 5.00

TOTAL SCORE 13.00 17.75 16.58 17.67

MAXIMUM SCORE 20 20 20 20


Recommended Terminal Development

22

Alt 1Upper Level

Alt 2Upper Level

Alt 3Upper Level

Alt 4Upper Level

Lower Level Bag Make-up Expansion

Ticket Lobby and Mezzanine Expansion

Bag Claim, Rental Car Lobbies and Mezzanine

Expansion

Agenda

» Introduction


– Airside

– Terminal

– Curbside

– Parking


– Cargo


» Next Steps

Terminal Curbside Alternative 1

24


+ 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



Land Management

Env Awareness

Terminal Curbside Alternative 2

25

– ROM Cost - $1.12M(Most Expensive)

Economic Growth

Safety



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



4.00 4.00


n/a n/a


4.60 3.40


4.50 4.00


4.50 4.50


n/a n/a


MAXIMUM SCORE 20 20


Recommended Curbside Development

27

Alt 1 Alt 2

Agenda

» Introduction


– Airside

– Terminal

– Curbside

– Parking


– Cargo


» 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


– Greater Expansion of Impermeable Surface (compared to Alt 2)

+ Garage Increases Supply of Premium Parking Options and Increases Revenue Generation Potential

Economic Growth

Safety



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


Economic Growth

Safety



Land Management

Env Awareness

Parking Alternatives Evaluation Summary

31



5.00 4.00


4.50 3.00


4.40 4.00


5.00 3.67


3.00 4.33


n/a n/a


MAXIMUM SCORE 25 25


Recommended Parking Development

32

Alt 1 Alt 2

Agenda

» Introduction


– Airside

– Terminal

– Curbside

– Parking


– Cargo


» Next Steps

General Aviation Alternative 1

34


+ 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



Land Management

Env Awareness

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


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



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


36


– 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



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


4.50 4.50 5.00


5.00 5.00 3.50


4.00 3.75 4.00


3.50 4.00 5.00


5.00 4.00 4.00


5.00 5.00 5.00

TOTAL SCORE 27.00 26.25 26.50

MAXIMUM SCORE 30 30 30SCORING RUBRIC


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


– Airside

– Terminal

– Curbside

– Parking


– Cargo


» 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


+ Tippin Ave Capable of Accommodating Large Truck Traffic

+ Space Adjacent to Site Available for Complimentary

Development

Economic Growth

Safety



Land Management

Env Awareness

+ Good Access to Interstate Highways


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



Land Management

Env Awareness

– Spanish Trail Poor Capability of Accommodating

Large Truck Traffic


42


– 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



Land Management

Env Awareness

+ Summit Blvd Capable of Accommodating Large Truck Traffic

Cargo Alternatives Evaluation Summary

43

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3


5.00 4.50 5.00


5.00 2.50 3.50


5.00 3.67 4.33


4.50 2.00 3.00


4.67 5.00 5.00


5.00 2.50 4.50

TOTAL SCORE 29.17 20.17 25.33

MAXIMUM SCORE 30 30 30SCORING RUBRIC


Alt 3

Recommended Cargo Development

44

Alt 1

Alt 2

Viable Secondary Development Option

Not Viable Development Option

Primary Development Option

Agenda

» Introduction


– Airside

– Terminal

– Curbside

– Parking


– Cargo


» Next Steps

46

Recommended Development Alternative

47

Recommended Development Alternative – South

48

Recommended Development Alternative – North

49

Recommended Terminal Alternative


50

Recommended Future Land Use Plan

Agenda

» Introduction


– Airside

– Terminal

– Curbside

– Parking


– Cargo


» 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

MayJul Jan Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul2016 2017 2018

QUESTIONS?

December 19, 2017

Date post:	06-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE...–Cargo » Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps. Terminal...

Documents