30
JANUARY 2016 2016/2/9 1 JICA’s INFORMATION COLLECTION SURVEY FOR NEW MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT IN THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Material for Stakeholders Meeting
JANUARY 2016
2016/2/9 1
JICA’s INFORMATION COLLECTION SURVEY FOR
NEW MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT IN
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Material for Stakeholders Meeting
2016/2/9 2
Scope of This Presentation
1. Long-term Air Traffic Demand and Capacities of GCR 2. Possibility to Utilize Sangley as NAIA’s Third RWY 3. Twin-airport System for GCR 4. Basic Requirement for NMIA 5. Nine Alternative New Airport Sites 6. Initial Screening of Alternative Sites 7. Prospective New Airport Sites No.1 through No. 5 8. Evaluation Criteria 9. Key Control Point for Site Examination: RP-P1 10. Key Control Point for Site Examination: Sub-surface Soils
of Laguna de Bay 11. Summary Result of Site Examination 12. Existing NAIA 13. Proposed Next Step
2016/2/9 3
1. Long-term Air Traffic Demand and Capacity of GCR Based on the Past Trend (Base Case)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Forecast Long-term Air Passenger Demand of
GCR (Thousand)
NAIA Domestic NAIA Int'l CRK Domestic CRK Int'l
Estimated/Potential Capacities of NAIA and CRK:
- NAIA; Approx. 40 MPPA to be saturated by 2020. (250,000 movements x 160 pax.) Capacity enhancement by development of new gateway airport urgently required.
- CRK; Approx. 80 MPPA (Master Plan updated by ADPI for 50-year planning horizon) CRK to accommodate over-spilt passengers and cargo in the short to medium-term from NAIA and the newly generated demand by Clark Green City.
2016/2/9 4
2. Possibility to Utilize Sangley as NAIA’s Third RWY
Possible Aircraft Type/Traffic Transferable to Sangley • From airspace utilization viewpoint, categories A &
B (TP/RJ) only can operate at Sangley. • Aircraft movement of more or less 25,000 annually,
equivalent to approx. 1.5 MPPA.
Development Period and Cost of Sangley • Construction of the access bridge would require 4
to 6 years from decision-making. • Construction of the access bride and airport
facilities would cost more than PHP 10 B.
Conclusion • Utilization of Sangley as the third runway of NAIA is
considered not cost effective.
2016/2/9 5
3. Twin-airport System for GCR 3.1 Need to Develop
In order to accommodate the long-term air passenger demand of GCR, twin-airport system each with adequate long-term capacity needs to be developed. - NMIA for Metro Manila and Southern Luzon - CRK for Metro Clark and Northern Luzon
CRK
NMIA NAIA
CRK
2016/2/9 6
3. Twin-Airport System for GCR 3.2 Trial Traffic Distribution
Assumptions: NAIA would exceed 41.5 MPPA in 2018, reaching its capacity
limit. Over spilled traffic would be transferred to CRK. In around 2028 when the first phase NMIA development is
completed, NAIA would be closed down and majority of the over spilled traffic would be accommodated at NMIA together with those being accommodated by NAIA.
However, 20% of the Base Case demand of NAIA would continue to utilize CRK as they would be to/from Regions I, II, III and CAR and should be happy to utilize CRK with improved flight frequency and network.
2016/2/9 7
3. Twin-Airport System for GCR 3.3 Result of Trial Traffic Distribution
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
NAIA NMIA CRK
Passengers Distributed based on Assumptions
2016/2/9 8
4. Basic Requirements for NMIA 4.1 Major Airport Facility Requirements
Runways - Length and Width: 4000 m x 60 m - Number and Configuration:
Opening Day; Two widely spaced parallel runways. Ultimate Phase; Two pairs of widely spaced close parallel
runway (in total four runways). Three widely spaced parallel runways could be optional solution, subject to further examination.
- Approach category: Precision instrument approach
Passenger terminal building - Estimated total floor space on opening day: about 700,000 m2 Cargo terminal building - Estimated total floor space on opening day: about 80,000 m2
2016/2/9 9
4. Basic Requirements 4.2 Opening Day Platform Size
Platform size on opening day will be 6 km x 2.5 km =15 km2 (1500 ha) where two open parallel runways and terminal facilities will be provided.
NewIsland
IslandonOpening
PTBApron
Cargo
Maintenance
U lity
Apron PTB
Imaginary Concept of NMIA Development on Opening Day
2016/2/9 10
4. Basic Requirements 4.3 Ultimate Airport Platform Size
Ultimate Phase NMIA: 6km x 4km=24 km2 (2400 ha) to allow Widely Spaced Two Sets of Close Parallel Runways .
Image of Widely Spaced Two Sets of Close Parallel Runways
2016/2/9 11
5. Nine Alternative New Airport Sites
Angat-Pandi-Bustos
Obando
Northern Manila Bay
Central Manila Bay
Sangley Option 2
Sangley Option 1
San Nicholas Shoals
Laguna West
Talim Island
2016/2/9 12
6. Initial Screening of Nine Alternative Sites
Site Brief Explanation of Examination Result
Angat-Pandi-Bustos
Not preferable as the development of NMIA at this site would result in competition with CRK, not addressing the serious capacity constraint issue of NAIA.
Obando Not preferable due to several disadvantages such as already congested and narrow limited road network and expected high cost for stabilization of sub-surface soils.
Northern Manila Bay
Not preferable due to several disadvantages such as already congested and narrow limited road network and expected high cost for stabilization of sub-surface soils.
Central Manila Bay This site should be subjected to the next detail examination as it offers advantage such as good accessibility, although there could be several issues such as overlapping with and height restriction on Manila Port Zone.
Sangley Option 1 This site should be subjected to the next detail examination as it offers several advantages such as good accessibility, while no significant disadvantage is recognized at this stage of examination.
Sangley Option 2 This site should be subjected to the next detail examination as it offers several advantages such as good accessibility, while no significant disadvantage is recognized at this stage of examination.
San Nicholas Shoals
This site should be subjected to the next detail examination as it offers no significant disadvantage at this stage of examination.
Laguna West This site should be subjected to the next detail examination as it offers good accessibility both by road and rail.
Rizal-Talim Island Not preferable site as this site is surrounded by high mountains on both sides which would infringe the obstacle limitation surfaces, among other disadvantages.
2016/2/9 13
7. Prospective New Airport Sites Site No.1: Sangley Point Option 1
2016/2/9 14
7. Prospective New Airport Sites Site No. 2: Sangley Point Option 2
2016/2/9 15
7. Prospective New Airport Sites Site No. 3: Central Portion of Manila Bay
Boundary of Port Zone
Central Portion of Manila Bay partially overlaps Manila Port Zone.
2016/2/9 16
Site No. 3: Central Portion of Manila Bay Obstacle Limitation Surfaces
2016/2/9 17
Site No. 3: Central Portion of Manila Bay Height Limitation on and around Manila Port Zone
Boundary of Port Zone
Height Limitation: 0m
Height Limitation: 60m
Height Limitation: 150m
2016/2/9 18
7. Prospective New Airport Sites Site No. 4: San Nicholas Shoals
2016/2/9 19
7. Prospective New Airport Sites Site No. 5: Western Portion of Laguna de Bay
8. Evaluation Criteria
2016/2/9 20
1. Airspace Utilization and Aircraft Operations
2. Environmental and Social Consideration 3. Geohazard 4. Reclamation for Platform Development 5. Airport Access Traffic and Network 6. Surrounding Land Use and Urban
Planning 7. Preliminary Cost Estimate for Platform
and Access Development
2016/2/9 21
9. Key Control Point for Site Examination: RP-P1
Site feasibility as new airport site One of major control points is conflict with PR-P1: Malacanang. In cases of Sangley Point Option 2 and San Nicholas Shoals, Instrument Flight Procedures conflict with RP-P1. Unless the upper height limit (5500FT) is removed or relaxed, IFP cannot be practicable.
2016/2/9 22
Overlapping with RP-P1: Sangley Point Option 2 (RWY 25)
2016/2/9 23
Overlapping with RP-P1: San Nicholas Shoals (RWY 22)
2016/2/9 24
10. Key Control Point for Site Examination: Subsurface Soils of Laguna de Bay
Although no boring data are not available, subsurface soils of Laguna de Bay are likely to be composed of very soft and expansible silt (thickness of around 10m). Fill material would need to be dredged from the lake bottom. Consequently the cost for platform development would be excessive. Conduct of additional boring tests in the next step proposed.
Photo 8.6-3 Dredging by Clamshell-Grab Photo 8.6-4 Improved Soil with Cement Mixing
2016/2/9 25
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2010 2014 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Domestic
International
(Foreigner)
(Filipino)
Total
11. Summary Result of Site Examination Item
Sangley Point Option 1
Sangley Point Option 2
Central Portion of Manila Bay
San Nicholas Shoals Western Portion of
Laguna
Airspace Utilization and Aircraft Operations
Possible Very difficult
Conflict with RP-P1, RP-R73, RP-R75.
Possible Control of
surrounding developments
required.
Very difficult Conflict with RP-P1.
Possible Conflict with RP-R73
could be coordinated.
Environmental and Social Considerations
Significant Involuntary
resettlement 4,100 people
Significant Involuntary
resettlement 6,200 people
Significant Involuntary
resettlement 6,200 people
Significant Involuntary
resettlement 4,100 people
Less Involuntary
resettlement 300 people
Risk of Natural Hazard
Feasible Feasible
Moderate Migrant birds could
be cause of bird strike.
Feasible
Less feasible Excessively high peak ground acceleration
anticipated
Reclamation for Platform Development
Feasible Feasible Feasible Feasible
Not Feasible Stabilization of
dredged fill material and lake bed.
Airport Access: Travel time from Makati
Moderate About 35 min.
Feasible About 27 min.
Feasible About 23 min.
Moderate About 35 min.
Very good connectable with
LLED and PNR About 28 min.
Surrounding Land Use and Urban Development
Feasible Feasible Conflict with port
zone of PPA Less Feasible Feasible
Cost for Opening Day *2
US$ 10,860 US$ 11,645 US$ 13,482 US$ 10,065 US$ 22,146*4
Overall Feasible Less feasible Feasible on condition*3
Less feasible *1 Less feasible*4
2016/2/9 26
*1: In case of San Nicholas Shoals site, if the airspace utilization issue is successfully coordinated, overall rating should be regarded as Feasible. *2: The “Cost for Opening Day” includes the costs for the platform development (approximately 1500 ha), access road, land acquisition for the access road construction, compensation (for 2400 ha) as well as the airport facilities for opening day but excludes the costs for the engineering, contingencies, taxes and duties and other incidental costs. *3: A part of PPA port zone would overlap with the airport property. The ships anchored in the port zone would infringe the obstacle limitation surfaces of NMIA. Successful coordination with PPA would be required for reduction of the port zone and anchorage. Meeting with PPA was held on 25 Jan. 2016 and confirmed that any capacity reduction of South Port by NMIA should not be accepted. *4: The cost estimate and hence overall examination result for this site should be reviewed based on actual boring tests data to be conducted in the next master planning and feasibility study stage.
Notes to Evaluation Summary
27
Notes to Evaluation Summary: Cost Breakdown (Million US$)
Note. Cost estimate was done based on the platform size of 1500ha and airport facilities on the opening day. However the cost of compensation for affected fisherfolk was estimated for the required platform size of 2400ha for the long-term. The cost does not include engineering, contingencies, taxes and duties and other incidental costs.
(Million US$)
Items SangleyOption 1
SangleyOption 2
CentralManila Bay
San NicholasShoals
WesternLaguna
A. Platform Development (1500 ha) 5,716 6,354 8,379 4,942 16,774
Seawall 1,218 1,429 1,485 1,112 2,704
Reclamation 3,529 3,847 4,437 2,950 13,767
Acceleration of Consolidation Settlement 428 528 1,910 348 303
Liquefaction Prevention 541 550 546 533 0
B. Airport Access Development (Opening
Day)588 705 464 588 504
Expressway 588 705 464 588 504
Rail 0 0 0 0 0
C. Land Acquisition and Compensation (2400
ha)41 48 48 42 24
D. Subtotal (A+B+C) 6,344 7,107 8,890 5,573 17,301
E. Airport Facilities Development (Opening
Day)4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200
Airfield/Landside Civil Facilities 707 707 707 707 707
Buildings 2,689 2,689 2,689 2,689 2,689
Utilities 646 646 646 646 646
CNS/ATM & AGL 159 159 159 159 159
F. General Requirement 315 338 391 292 644
G. Total for Opening Day (D+E+F) 10,860 11,645 13,482 10,065 22,146
Reference: Platform Development (2400 ha) 8,501 9,418 10,580 7,326 25,314
2016/2/9 28
12. Existing NAIA on Opening Day of NMIA
None of the prospective new airport sites offers simultaneous operability with NAIA RWY 06/24. Existing NAIA could be closed down for urban transport and commercial development, etc. subject to further discussion and coordination.
2016/2/9 29
13. Proposed Next Step
1. Remaining sites for further detailed evaluation:
a. Sangley Point Option 1;
b. Western Portion of Laguna de Bay.
2. A Full-blown Master Plan and Feasibility Study (M/P and F/S) to be conducted as the next step for realization of NMIA development.
3. The M/P and F/S to be carried out in two phases:
i. Phase I; Formulation of the Best Airport System for GCR as well as Final Site Evaluation and Decision-making.
ii. Phase II; FS for Development of NMIA Opening Day including Financial and Economic Analyses, Environmental and Social Considerations, Urban/Transport/Commercial Developments, Implementation Scheme and Policy Issues.
2016/2/9 30
This is the end of Presentation. Thank you very much for your attention.
