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 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 Today’s Discussion Investigative Solutions Implementation Inventory Forecasts Program Facility Development Implementation Requirements Alternatives Plan Master Plan Airport Report Layout Plan = TAC Meeting 6
Agenda » Introduction » Alternatives Evaluation – Methodology – Airside – Terminal – Curbside – Parking – General Aviation – Cargo » Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps
Evaluation Goals SAFETY GOAL STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENT GOAL Conform to industry regulations and guidelines Promote highest and best land use OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY GOAL ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS GOAL Accommodate short-term (2020), intermediate- Further environmental awareness term (2025), and long-term (2035) demand ECONOMIC GROWTH GOAL FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY GOAL Facilitate regional economic growth through Maintain fiscal sustainability airport development and operation 8
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
Goal Score Reflects Criteria Alternatives Evaluation Example Average - Max Score is 5 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 SAFETY 5.00 4.50 Conform to industry regulations and guidelines STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENT 4.00 3.50 Promote highest and best land use N/A Score for OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 4.00 4.40 Goals/Criteria Not Accommodate short-term (2020), intermediate-term (2025), and long-term (2035) Applicable to Alternative demand ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS 2.00 4.75 Further environmental awareness FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY 3.33 4.33 Evaluation Maintain fiscal sustainability Goals ECONOMIC GROWTH n/a n/a Facilitate regional economic growth through airport development and operation Total Score for TOTAL SCORE 18.33 21.98 Alternative MAXIMUM SCORE 25 25 SCORING RUBRIC 5 - Alternative Fully Responds to Criterion/Goal 4 - Alternative Largely Responds to Criterion/Goal 10 Maximum Score Based Alternative 2 3 - Alternative Partially Responds to Criterion/Goal 2 - Alternative Minimally Responds to Criterion/Goal on Applicable Goals Performs Better 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
Airside Alternative 1 + Paved Airside Service Road Results in – ROM Cost - $42.60M Contiguous Service Road Network (Most Expensive) Safety – Airside Service Road Utility Operational Efficiency Questionable because of ILS Fiscal + PBN/RNAV Approach has Critical Area Impact Sustainability Minimal Noise Impacts to Land Sensitive Areas Management Env Awareness + Each Rwy End served by Dual Parallel Twys Economic Growth + Twy Extension Provides Greater Utility for Departures – MALSR May Be Costly Due to Terrain – Twy Extension 12 Impacts Park
Airside Alternative 2 – Airside Service Road Not Contiguous + ROM Cost - $41.11M Prevents Circumnavigation (Least Expensive) Safety – PBN/RNAV Approach has Potential Noise Operational + ASR Relocation Opens Efficiency Impacts to Sensitive Areas Area for Revenue Fiscal Sustainability Generating Development Land Management Env Awareness Economic Growth – MALSR May Require Easements + Greater Utility for Rwy 8 PBN/RNAV Approach (compared to Alt 1) + ASR Relocated to Site with Limited Utility as Aeronautical Development – Rwy Crossing or 13 Intersection Dep Req. for Rwy 8 From Twy D
Airside Alternatives Evaluation Summary Alternative 1 Alternative 2 SAFETY 5.00 4.50 Conform to industry regulations and guidelines STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENT 3.00 5.00 Promote highest and best land use OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 5.00 4.40 Accommodate short-term (2020), intermediate-term (2025), and long-term (2035) demand ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS 4.50 3.50 Further environmental awareness FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY 4.00 4.67 Maintain fiscal sustainability ECONOMIC GROWTH 5.00 5.00 Facilitate regional economic growth through airport development and operation 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 14 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 Alt 1 Alt 2 Paved Airside Rwy 8 PBN/RNAV Approach Perimeter Rd (Tentative Primary Option Obstruction Analysis Outstanding) Retain Twy C Retain Twy D1 Relocated ASR Rwy 26 PBN/RNAV Approach Taxiway D Extended Without (Secondary Option Off-Airport Impacts Obstruction Analysis Outstanding) 15
Agenda » Introduction » Alternatives Evaluation – Methodology – Airside – Terminal – Curbside – Parking – General Aviation – Cargo » Recommended Development Plan » Next Steps
Terminal Alternative 1 + ROM Cost - $22.94M ROM Cost - $22.94M (Least Expensive) – Lacks Improvement Lower Level Upper Level to Bag Claim and Rental Car Lobbies + Minimal Expansion Minimizes Costs – Lacks Improvement Ticket Lobby – No Improvements to Fiscal Safety Env Awareness 17 Sustainability Post-Security Concessions Operational Land Economic Growth Efficiency Management
Terminal Alternative 2 + ROM Cost - $37.61M (Relative Moderate Cost) – Lacks Improvement Lower Level Upper Level to Bag Claim and Rental Car Lobbies + Increased Rev. Generation with Post-Security Concession Expansion + Improvements to Ticket Lobby Enhances Passenger Flow and LOS + Relocated ATOs to Fiscal Mezzanine Enhances Safety Env Awareness 18 Sustainability Space Utilization Operational Land Economic Growth Efficiency Management
Terminal Alternative 3 + New Office Space over + ROM Cost - $39.73M Bag Claim Lobby Enhances (Relative Moderate Cost) + Expansion Enhances Space Utilization Lower Level Upper Level Passenger Flow and LOS – Split Baggage + Increased Rev. Generation Make-up Area with Post-Security Concession Expansion + Improvements to Ticket Lobby Enhances Passenger Flow and LOS Fiscal Safety Env Awareness 19 Sustainability Operational Land Economic Growth Efficiency Management
Terminal Alternative 4 + Increased Rev. Generation – ROM Cost - $43.76M with Post-Security (Most Expensive) Concession Expansion + Expansion Enhances Lower Level Upper Level Passenger Flow and LOS + Balanced/Symmetrical Configuration Supports Efficient Passenger Flow + Improvements to Ticket Lobby Enhances Passenger Flow and LOS + Relocated ATOs to Fiscal Mezzanine Enhances Safety Env Awareness 20 Sustainability Space Utilization Operational Land Economic Growth Efficiency Management
Terminal Alternatives Evaluation Summary Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 SAFETY 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Conform to industry regulations and guidelines STRATEGIC LAND MANAGEMENT n/a n/a n/a n/a Promote highest and best land use OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY 2.00 4.75 4.25 5.00 Accommodate short-term (2020), intermediate-term (2025), and long-term (2035) demand ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS n/a n/a n/a n/a Further environmental awareness FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY 4.00 4.00 3.33 2.67 Maintain fiscal sustainability ECONOMIC GROWTH 2.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 Facilitate regional economic growth through airport development and operation 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 21 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 Alt 1 Alt 2 Upper Level Upper Level Lower Level Bag Make-up Expansion Alt 3 Alt 4 Upper Level Upper Level Bag Claim, Rental Car Lobbies and Mezzanine Expansion Ticket Lobby and Mezzanine 22 Expansion
Recommend
More recommend
