ITEM NO:       7a_Supp .
DATE OF MEETING:  January 26, 2016
Revised January 21, 2016
SUSTAINABLE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
(SAMP) UPDATE
January 26, 2016

Briefing overview
Background & planning process update
Airport activity
Airfield simulation modeling
Major plan elements
Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Mid-term landside strategy
Economic development
Public outreach
Next steps
2

Background
Planning context
Long-range plan (e.g. SAMP)
Campus wide, comprehensive planning
Facility requirements for airport activity in 5-year increments to 20-years
Alternatives analysis for major plan elements
Narrowing alternatives down to Preferred Alternative(s)
20-year facilities development plan
Balance capacity in all key functional areas to fixed capacity of 3-runway airfield
Phasing plan to maintain adequate level of service and continuity of operations
Capital program / plan of finance
Project definition (e.g., concourse layouts for new gate piers)
Program development for individual projects
Adequate detail required to transition projects to design
Project design
3

Airport activity
Higher than previously forecasted growth in recent years
Dramatic growth in 2015
Operations: 70% of SAMP 5-year forecasted growth anticipated in 2015
Passengers: 55% of SAMP 5-year forecasted growth anticipated in 2015

2015: 12.9%




Higher than previously forecasted growth in recent years      4

Where we are in the planning process
Current work
Airfield modeling
Assessed capacity of existing airfield at increased activity levels
Assessed capacity of airfield with improvements at increased activity levels
Assessing impacts of runway/taxiway separation
Developed options for major plan elements
Evaluated one and two terminal options
Developed mid-term landside strategy
Leverages operational measures and relatively low cost capital projects
Consistent with one or two terminal options (minimal throwaway)
On-going work to explore phasing for gates, terminal and hardstands
Beginning work to eliminate alternatives towards preferred alternative(s)

5

Airside simulation modeling
Approach & capacity
Approach
Simulated average day of peak month at 5-year activity levels
North & south flow
Instrument & visual conditions
Assumed all anticipated FAA improvements to arrival/departure
airspace procedures
Existing airfield with & without improvements
Annualize delay
Airside capacity threshold is 20 minutes average annual delay per
aircraft operation
Highest delay level experienced at any US airport
Recognized by FAA as maximum theoretical capacity
Analytic threshold, not a policy target


Capacity threshold of the airside is 20 minutes average annual delay  6

Airside simulation modeling
Potential airfield improvements
Potential airfield improvements include
End-around taxiways
Centerfield taxiway
Dual taxiways A & B south of terminal





Suite of potential airfield improvements tested through modeling   7

Airside simulation modeling
Major elements
Airspace
Airfield
Runways
Taxiways
Runway crossings
Aircraft hold positions
Terminal gates
Intersection of airfield and terminal complex identified as critical to
efficiency resulting in need for aircraft hold positions
Approximately 35 required in 2029


Aircraft hold positions are critical to airside efficiency       8

Airside simulation modeling
Why are aircraft hold positions so important?
Delay compounded if gate access is blocked by taxiway queue
Aircraft hold positions allow for:
Departing aircraft to move off a gate until a slot in the departure queue opens
up (frees-up gate for arrival of another aircraft)
Arriving aircraft to be held off-gate until gate becomes available

Long aircraft queues on 
taxiways impede access to 
gates and hold positions



Hold positions provide relief valve to airfield congestion      9

Airside simulation modeling
Conclusions & recommendations
Airfield reaches critical delay between 2029 & 2034
Significantly more aircraft holding positions required north & south
South end-around taxiway provides the highest delay reduction benefit
Continue to plan for 35 additional gates to provide operational flexibility
Delay reduction benefit of potential improvements


NOTE: Baseline model run 
includes required aircraft hold 
positions and anticipated 
airspace procedures.
Airfield reaches critical delay between 2029 & 2034       10

Major plan elements
Plan development (iterative process)
Determine preferred gate expansion concept
Assess airside capacity and required airfield & terminal facilities
Gates
Aircraft hold positions
Airfield improvements
Allocate remaining land based on hierarchy
Terminal
Airfield
Landside
Cargo
Airline support
Airport support

Plan development is an iterative process           11

Major plan elements
Development constraints & key functional areas






12

Major plan elements
Concept 1
Description
New widebody international gates on extension of Concourse A
Extension of Concourse D to two piers to the north
Aircraft hold positions provide to the north only
Primary concerns/flaws
New south end gates in congested aircraft movement area
Does not provide aircraft hold positions on south end
Displaces aircraft maintenance


NOTE: Development concepts 
illustrate major plan elements 
independent of 1 vs 2 terminals
Concept 1 locates new widebody gates in a congested area    13

Major plan elements
Concept 2
Description
New widebody international gates on Concourse B
Extension of Concourse D to three piers to the north
Less aircraft hold positions provided to the north
Primary concerns/flaws
Does not provide aircraft hold positions on south end



NOTE: Development concepts 
illustrate major plan elements 
independent of 1 vs 2 terminals

Concept 2 does not provide aircraft hold positions on south end   14

Major plan elements
Concept 3
Description
New widebody international gates on Concourse B
Extension of Concourse D to three piers to the north
Aircraft hold positions provided to the south and north
Primary concerns/flaws
Displaces aircraft maintenance



NOTE: Development concepts 
illustrate major plan elements 
independent of 1 vs 2 terminals

Concept 3 displaces aircraft maintenance          15

Major plan elements
Concept 4
Description
New widebody international gates on Concourse B
Extension of Concourse D to three piers to the north
Aircraft hold positions provided to the south and north
SASA accommodates displaced aircraft maintenance and cargo growth
Primary advantages
Meets all program needs
Best operational layout


NOTE: Development concepts 
illustrate major plan elements 
independent of 1 vs 2 terminals
Concept 4 meets all program needs and provides best operational layout 16

Major plan elements
Convert Concourse B to International widebody gates


Gate expansion to the north on
piers provides better
distribution of aircraft activity
Preserves area to the south for
aircraft hold positions
Shorter connection from new
widebody gate to IAF
Likely recommend new
construction vs renovation
Locating widebody gates on Concourse B provides multiple advantages  17

Major plan elements
Airport support facilities
Air Rescue & Firefighting facility (ARFF)
Two stations required to meet runway response times
ARFF located east of airfield
2nd ARFF located on west side of airfield or general aviation area
Difficult to meet minimum response times today
Difficulty getting tower clearance and will be more challenging
with growth
Best location for future ARFF located east of airfield presents
greater challenge than existing location
Airport Maintenance
Locate all functions on west side of airfield


Preferred locations for ARFF and airport maintenance facilities identified 18

Major plan elements
Airport support facilities
ARFF siting considerations
Airside & landside access          Compatibility w/ existing & future facilities
Adequate space for program needs   Runway response times







19

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Evaluation criteria
Cost (total cost of ownership)
Capital
Operation and maintenance
Risk
Ability to accommodate faster growth than anticipated
Ability to accommodate higher level of activity than ultimately anticipated
Flexibility
Operational: airline assignments, load balancing
Facilities: efficiency, sustainability, timing and scope
Development
Phasing: ability to provide adequate capacity in a timely manner
Constructability: code issues, abatement
Level of service
During construction
Post construction
20

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Construction projects unique to one terminal option
Remove interior ramps & remodel main terminal Level 1
Remove upper level departure road
Raise lower level roadway to align with arrivals floor level
Remove pedestrian bridges from level 4 and relocate to level 5
New garage level 5 entrance and exit lanes and roadway
Remove western edge section of parking garage levels 6 to 8
Expand departure level facade by 25' and remove interior ramps
Remodel interior of main terminal Level 2
System transfer OB/IB baggage between main terminal and north gates
Relocate/replace/install elevator cores, escalators, vent stacks as required
to move upper drive functions and rental car to level 5 of garage
Expand ticketing & baggage claim at north end of terminal building
New north of terminal garage for 3,750 Cars
New automated people mover between main terminal and north gates
One terminal option includes substantial projects in multiple phases 21

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Construction projects unique to two terminal option
Baggage system & tunnel between north terminal & airside corridor
New north terminal roadway
Pedestrian bridge between north terminal and airside concourse
New utility plant for north terminal
New north terminal garage for 5,000 Cars
New north terminal
Expand ticketing & baggage claim at north end of existing terminal
building



Two terminal option has fewer construction projects      22

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Project phasing for one terminal option
Garage - demolition & roadway construction






23

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Project phasing for one terminal option
Upper drive - demolition






24

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Project phasing for one terminal option
Pedestrian circulation - renovation






25

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Project phasing for one terminal option
Pedestrian circulation - renovation






26

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Project phasing for one terminal option
Pedestrian circulation - renovation






27

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Project phasing for one terminal option
Ticketing - renovation






28

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Project phasing for one terminal option
Lower drive - reconstruction






29

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Example of project replacing airport drives
Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International  baggage screening project
Phased construction took roadway & curbside out of service
Time frame for roadways and curbside being out of service is variable
Construction in areas can be limited to provide higher passenger safety





30

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Project phasing for one terminal option
Baggage claim - renovation






31

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Cost: comparison of differentiating terminal and support projects only
One terminal                 Two terminals
Capital    $$$$$$$$$$  Capital         $$$$$$
Operation & maintenance$$  Operation & maintenance $$
Capital projects include:               Capital projects include:
Expand & renovate existing terminal         New north terminal & roadway connections
Reconstruct & expand drives              North terminal to piers baggage &
Automated people mover to north gates        pedestrian connections



One terminal option is more expensive to construct       32

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Risk: if growth is faster than anticipated
One terminal                 Two terminals
Multiple phases and lead time to deliver   Shorter lead time to deliver additional
improvements means shortage of       capacity
capacity for longer period of time        Construction on greenfield site does
Larger capacity deficit and lower level     not impact capacity and level of service
of service during construction
Slower growth would provide more time to implement projects with potentially less level of service impacts



Two terminal option can deliver additional capacity more quickly  33

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Risk: if growth is ultimately greater than anticipated
One terminal                 Two terminals
Challenge of accommodating demand in   Second terminal is already positioned
existing terminal becomes more        to accommodate more demand
pronounced                   All elements of single terminal solution
May lead to development of second      still in place, but available on a
terminal                       categorical basis
Less ultimate growth would potentially raise the level of service of the one terminal option



Two terminal option can accommodate a higher level of activity   34

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Flexibility: operational
One terminal                 Two terminals
Passenger activity disproportionately     Better balance of passenger loads
loaded to north end of single terminal     north and south between two terminals
Creates less desirable situation for       Greater flexibility to assign airlines to
carriers on north piers (longer distance    north and south gates
from terminal to gates)




Two terminal option provides better balance of passenger loads   35

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Flexibility: facilities
One terminal                 Two terminals
Redevelopment/retrofit within         Purpose built second terminal provides
constraints of existing terminal results     better performing systems (baggage,
in less efficient facility                 passenger processing) and greater
More immediate need to provide APM     opportunity for green building
connection to RCF                 Greatly reduces/delays need for APM to
replace RCF buses (relieves congestion
in front of terminal)



2nd terminal provides opportunity for more efficient systems    36

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Development: phasing & constructability
One terminal                 Two terminals
Limited areas to expand existing        Adequate space to provide needed
terminal to provide additional capacity     capacity, efficient systems and high
Long lead time and disruptive string of    level of service
projects to expand terminal east         Greenfield site means quicker project
More detailed investigation required to    delivery with minimal operational
fully understand extent of retrofit        impacts



One terminal option difficult to phase in operational environment  37

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Level of service: during & post construction
One terminal                 Two terminals
Project phasing to expand terminal east   Terminal construction on greenfield
results in long period of disruptive        site creates very little impact
construction                     Direct connection to north piers from
Long distance to northern most gates     second terminal
Heavy vehicle and passenger          Vehicle and passenger loads balanced
congestion at north end of terminal       between two terminals



Two terminal option relieves congestion at Main Terminal     38

Evaluation of one and two terminal options
Further study of one terminal option
Potential for process & technology improvements to avoid or delay the
need for 2nd terminal
Bag claim
Check-in
Security checkpoints
Passenger circulation
Landside modeling to determine what improvements would be
required/recommended if terminal expansion to the east can be avoided
Roadways
Curbs
Commercial ground transportation


Studying ways to avoid or delay need for 2nd terminal      39

Mid-term landside strategy
Overview
Problem:
Existing terminal roadways and curb will need to accommodate increased
demand in near- to mid-term
Three bottleneck areas may all need to be addressed or congestion will
persist and Level of Service (LOS) will rapidly diminish further
Goal:
Leverage operational strategies before phasing in capital projects
Minimize throwaway and maximize flexibility through relatively low cost
capital projects that are no regrets under one or two terminal solutions
BOTTLENECK AREAS

Exit ramps                    Drives approach
Curbside


Combination of operational and relatively low cost solutions identified  40

Mid-term landside strategy
Curbside: Key factors related to curbside congestion
Motorist behavior
Dwell times at SEA exceed industry norms
Reluctance to use inner lane
High demand (i.e. volume of vehicles loading/unloading)
Insufficient capacity
Insufficient curb length
Insufficient through / maneuvering lanes



Congestion on curbs caused by combination of factors      41

Mid-term landside strategy
Curbside: Potential operational improvements / strategies
Dwell time enforcement
Active, consistent, visible enforcement of curbside rules
Use enforcement staff to assist drivers in entering and exiting innermost
lane
Divert demand to alternate drive (Upper or Lower depending on peak)
Provide advance warning of curbside congestion (i.e. continue using
160th Street bridge variable sign)
Social media advisories, website notices
Signs in baggage claim suggesting use of alternate drive (e.g. "Avoid
being stuck in traffic. Consider using the Upper Drive the next time
you pick-up passengers.")


Operational strategies to reduce dwell time and divert demand   42

Mid-term landside strategy
Curbside: Potential improvements / strategies
Divert demand to Main Garage
Use existing ramp from Lower Drive approach to access 2nd floor
Outside of existing revenue controls allows for variable pricing
Create attractive, 'nested' parking
area close to elevators
Limit parking duration to ensure
high turnover and reliability (i.e.,
2 hours)



Create attractive, reliable parking to divert demand to garage    43

Mid-term landside strategy
Drives approach: Potential improvements

Remove bridge 
to Level 4
Provide dedicated 
exit/approach for 
RCF buses
Provide 3rd lane 
between parking exit & 
commercial vehicle exit


Relatively low cost capital improvements to increase LOS     44

Mid-term landside strategy
Drives approach: Potential improvements




Shift Upper Drive 
approach west
Extend 3rd lane north 
through pinch point

Relatively low cost capital improvements to increase LOS     45

Mid-term landside strategy
Exit ramps: Potential improvements
Upper Drive exit ramp with only one lane may present persistent
bottleneck that will need to be addressed in the mid-term
Adding lanes to either exit ramp would require reconstruction of
elevated structures


Upper Drive exit 
ramp (one lane)

Lower Drive exit 
ramp (two lanes)

Upper Drive exit ramp may need to be widened to two lanes    46

Economic Development
Airport growth provides economic development
opportunities
SAMP helps define airport operation needs for off-airport
properties
Thus far we have hosted business roundtable meetings with
each airport city:
Gives businesses and civic leadership chance to provide
input towards economic development initiatives and
aspirations
Specific plans and strategies can be coordinated with
SAMP
Development can occur even when not specific to SAMP
Managing Growth & Creating Economic Opportunities      47

Real Estate
Development Opportunities
Airport-area real estate development and
business incubator projects happening now
Des Moines Creek Business Park
NERA properties in Burien, both Port and City-
owned
Other airport properties in Seatac
business incubator opportunities on Port-owned
properties in SeaTac
Airport properties can support middle class job creation

SAMP & Economic Development
Master plan effort provides opportunity to
incorporate Port and partner City economic
development aspirations:
Tourism
Downtown Development
Small Business Development
Business Recruitment
Real Estate Development
SAMP = Economic Development Opportunity

Public Outreach
Engaging the General Public
Community open houses
Identical meeting and materials in three locations: airport-area,
Seattle, Eastside
1st Series: SAMP process, goals, forecast (March 2015)
2nd Series: Major Plan Elements (February 2016)
3rd Series: Preferred Development Alternative (Q3 2016)
King County survey Q1 2016
Formal Environmental Review begins mid-2016

Creating Wide Public Understanding           50

Public Outreach
Reaching Targeted Audiences
Forums and focus groups to reach specialized audiences
Local & regional planners
Stakeholders in economic and environmental sustainability,
social responsibility
Airport-area business roundtables
Commission-hosted roundtable discussions
Regional and local community groups and associations
Federal, state, regional & local government briefings
Ongoing engagement with tenants, operators, FAA, & TSA

Engaging all stakeholder interests             51

Public Outreach
Complete or in Process      Upcoming
Round One Open Houses (Des       Round Two Open Houses (SeaTac,
Moines, Seattle, Bellevue)           Seattle, Bellevue)
Air Mail newsletter (ongoing)       Translated documents
Interjurisdictional              Economic development follow-up
Transportation Advisory Group       Website update
Airport Communities Business      Video
and Economic Development        Social media emphasis
Roundtables
Media outreach
Environmental community
outreach                   Focus groups
SAMP brochure             SAMP notebook for Commissioners
Social Justice outreach           Environmental Review process
County-wide research           Round Three Open Houses (Burien,
Seattle, Eastside)

Support Port Commission Consideration of SAMP       52

Next steps
Airfield
Continue assessing impacts of runway/taxiway separation
Assess constructability and estimate cost of south end-around taxiway
Gates
Refine gate layouts & phasing plan
Terminal
Continued analysis of one vs two terminal concepts
Landside
On going capacity analysis through modeling
Develop roadway layouts and assess challenges
Support Airport Operations to further develop mid-term strategy and
spin-off projects
Support facilities
Incorporate support facilities into overall development plan
Determine land uses for South Aviation Support Area & timing of
development
Continued robust community engagement
53

SAMP Planning Schedule
Activity forecast (completed Q1 2015)
Alternatives analysis & development alternatives(s) for major elements (Q4 2014  Q4 2015)
Iterative process, finalizing facility requirements and defining development alternatives
Commission engagement at key decision points
Development of integrated preferred alternative(s) (Q4 2015  Q2 2016)
Constructability assessment
Phased implementation plan
Planning level cost estimates
Program plan of finance (Q1 2016  Q2 2016)
FAA ALP review (Q2 2016  Q2 2017)
Environmental review (Q4 2015  Q1 2017)



54