7a supp 1
MAJOR PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS North Satellite and International Arrivals Facility Seattle and Sea-Tac Face Challenges, but Are Envy of Other Cities /Airports Fastest growing U.S. city (of top 50) Increasingly internationally-oriented economy Hometown airline (Alaska) quite profitable Principal international airline (Delta) building major Asian gateway 2 Growth at Sea-Tac Airport Among fastest growing airports in the U.S.* Most recent 12 months 4.8%, 2nd fastest One of fastest growing international airports 2013: 10.2%, 2nd fastest 2012: 8.8%, 5th fastest Century Agenda: Double international flights and destinations in 25 years Have already added five intercontinental destinations in first 4 years, 40% toward goal. *comparisons to top 20 busiest U.S. airports 3 Growth at Sea-Tac Airport Delta: December, 2014 - 95 daily departures vs. 35 in 2013 Projects 150 daily departures in 2017 Has added six intercontinental destinations since 2007 Alaska: Added 8 daily departures in past 12 months 4 Growth at Sea-Tac Airport Master Plan Forecast: Preliminary analysis indicates DL/AS growth projections are sustainable -- reasonable growth expectations for five year period; will eventually revert to more modest growth In line with what has happened at other airports Staff will provide full briefing in August Facilities Planning: Must start focusing on post-NorthSTAR needs 5 SEA is underserved in relation to GDP: Total seats per million dollars of regional GDP, 2013 6 SEA significantly underserved on intercontinental service: Total intercontinental seats per million dollars of regional GDP, 2013 San Francisco includes SFO, OAK, and SJC. Los Angeles includes LAX, LGB, SNA, BUR, and ONT. Source: US Census, StatsCanada, Diio Mi 7 Scheduling Data. CY 2013. Sea-Tac is Ideal Asian Gateway Connecting Flight Duration to: Origin City via Shanghai (PVG) Ho Chi Minh City (SGN) Seoul (ICN) LAX 13:02 16:01 12:09 DENVER SFO 12:37 17:35 11:45 (DEN) SEA 11:58 14:59 11:04 LAX 14:36 17:35 13:43 CHICAGO SFO 14:11 17:10 13:18 (ORD) SEA 13:12 16:13 12:18 LAX 16:08 19:07 15:16 BOSTON SFO 15:42 18:42 14:50 (BOS) SEA 14:34 16:13 13:40 LAX 15:33 18:33 14:41 WASHINGTON SFO 15:12 18:11 14:19 (IAD) SEA 14:14 17:15 13:20 8 NorthSTAR Need for Additional Gates at North Satellite Very Conservative Assumptions re Gate Demand When Project Complete in 2020 Delta:2014 (old) schedule 80 departures Alaska:2017 projection (old) - 291 departures Other airlines:No growth All Gates Available at All Times "Gated" Every Anticipated Flight Need 4 More Gates for Peak AM/PM Need 9 12 ungated flights require 4 additional gates INSERT 2020 GATING ANALYSIS SLIDE FOR NORTH SATELLITE 10 Sea-Tac More Intensely Uses Gates and Aircraft Parking Positions 2013 Passengers per Ranking Airport Passengers (2013) Gates* Gate (U.S.) (in thousands) 12 Houston (IAH) 39,799,414 151 264 13 Newark (EWR) 35,016,236 107 327 14 Seattle (SEA) 34,826,741 87 400 15 Orlando (MCO) 34,768,416 96 362 16 Minneapolis (MSP) 33,892,074 114 297 17 Detroit (DTW) 32,389,544 147 220 18 Philadelphia (PHL) 30,504,112 126 242 *Gates are defined as boarding hold area locations in which ticketed passengers are directed for boarding of aircraft. Sources: ACI-NA 2013 Airport rankings and airport reports. Airport gate data from Airport Representatives 11 International Arrivals Facility: Bridge Best Connection Option 12 Sensitivity Analysis of Potential Cost Increases for NSAT and IAF Key metrics for affordability: Airline cost per enplanement (CPE) and debt per enplaned passenger CPE -- Remain in middle third of peer airports Forecast data is available, yet information is not equally up-to-date Debt per enplaned passenger Compare against peer airports; no forecast data available for other airports 13 CPE Comparison - Current 2012 CPE For 22 Peer Airports $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 26.75 25.55 24.94 $10.00 19.40 17.25 15.74 14.58 14.28 13.45 13.23 13.14 12.70 11.90 $5.00 10.80 10.15 10.13 9.54 8.10 6.54 6.50 5.64 4.13 $0.00 JFK EWR IAD MIA LGA SMF SFO BOS LAX SEA ORD SJC DEN PDX PHL IAH DTW SAN DFW MSP PHX SLC 14 CPE Comparison - Future $35.00 $30.00 $25.00 CPE Future CPE $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 IAD JFK EWR ORD LAX MIA SFO SMF LGA BOS SEA DFW DEN PHL PDX SJC SAN DTW IAH MSP SLC PHX 15 Debt Per Enplaned Passenger 2012 Peer Airports Airports that Debt Per Enplaned Passenger - 2012 Peer Airports serve as major $400 hubs have a 356 higher $350 341 percentage of $300 connecting traffic 260 and thus lower $250 debt per 215 $200 190 enplaned 157 153 passenger 148 $150 133 116 114 105 93 $100 92 89 74 $50 0 $0 SJC IAD SMF ORD SFO DFW SEA DEN DTW LAX BOS PHX IAH MSP PHL SAN SLC 16 Cost Increase Scenario Multiple changes in project costs and enplanement growth, coupled with management response -- IAF cost increases by $122M ($316M to $416M in Phase I and $28M to $50M in Phase II) NorthSTAR cost increases by $50M Reduce other capital spending by $172M Enplanement growth reduced from 2.2% to 1.5% for 2015 2019 (CAGR, 2012 through forecasted YE 2014= 5.5%) 17 CPE Comparison - Future $35.00 CPE Future CPE $30.00 SEA CPE as of 2020 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 IAD JFK EWR ORD LAX MIA SFO SMF SEA LGA BOS DFW DEN PHL PDX SJC SAN DTW IAH MSP SLC PHX 18 Debt Per Enplaned Passenger 2012 Peer Airports vs. SEA Forecast $400 356 Blue: other airports in 2012 $350 341 Green: SEA in 2012 Rust: SEA 2020 Base Forecast and Scenarios $300 260 $250 215 $200 190 164 157 153 148 $150 133 116 114 105 $100 93 92 89 74 $50 0 $0 SJC IAD SMF ORD SFO SEA 3 DFW SEA DEN DTW LAX BOS PHX IAH MSP PHL SAN SLC 19 Summary Seattle's Economy Driving Growth in Airline Capacity Sea-Tac is Ideal North American Gateway to Asia Need Additional NSAT Gates and Must Start Planning for Additional Capacity Possible Growth in Project Costs Can be Accommodated 20 Item No.: 7a_supp Meeting Date: July 22, 2014 International Arrivals Facility Project Progress Briefing & Actions Ahead 1 Briefing Outline IAF Project History Why IAF is needed Comparison to other West Coast Arrivals Facilities Short & long term approach to improvements Project funding and accomplishments Schedule over next 6 months Connector contracting Customer service metrics Next steps: July 29 request 2 Project History Why SEA needs a new IAF Existing facility is outdated, beyond capacity, and provides poor customer service 3 Project History Comparison to other West Coast Arrivals Facilities YVR SFO LAX 4 Project History Two Prong Approach - Short and Long Term: Making SSAT short term improvements in existing facility to meet growing customer demands until IAF opens Reconfigure wayfinding graphics, colors, signs HVAC and stanchions 12th wide body aircraft gate Ramp and plans for hardstand bussing 5 Project History Two Prong Approach - Short and Long Term: Long term improvements develop the IAF 11 Commission briefings and actions since 2010 6 Project History In July, 2013, Commission authorized $3.5M In March, 2014, Commission authorized $5M Accomplishments in the last 12 months: Validated best and responsive procurement method (PDB) Assembled team (staff, specialty consultant, ATR) Conducted lessons learned effort including visits to other airports and outreach to other public agencies using PDB Completed project planning (including Connector options evaluation) Started cost validation 7 Schedule Cost validation effort initiated 06/30/2014 Advertise RFQ for DB Team 07/30/2014 Commission update 08/19/2014 DB Statement of qualifications due 09/09/2014 Commission update 09/09/2014 Shortlist 3-5 firms as finalists 10/14/2014 Commission update, cost validation 10/28/2014 Issue RFP to finalists 10/30/2014 Commission update 11/25/2014 Select IAF DB Team 01/12/2015 Commission update 01/13/2015 8 Connector Contracting Benefits of contracting the design and construction of the IAF and Connector together include: Simultaneous coordination of design and construction Management by a single team Allows faster completion for both airlines and travelers Reduces construction coordination and other risks 9 IAF Connector Evaluation Criteria Passenger Experience Capacity/Future Flexibility Construction Impacts Capital Cost Maintenance Cost Risk 10 Evaluation Criteria Bridge Tunnel Passenger Experience Natural Light More lighting necessary Unique views: airfield activity Interior finishes more and mountains important More intuitive way finding More vertical transitions Longer passenger route Capacity/Future Smaller ramp footprint Larger ramp footprint Flexibility Wider profile allows 2 way Could limit STS expansion passenger flow 11 Evaluation Factor Bridge Tunnel Taxi-lane and Gate 12 months 18 months Impacts Initial Capital Cost Lower Higher (estimated $12-17M) On-going Slightly higher Slightly lower Maintenance Cost (estimated $15-30K/yr) 12 12 Evaluation Factor Bridge Tunnel Risk Scale/Height Contaminated/soft soil conditions Utilities disruption Work under active taxi-lane More construction traffic on ramp (soils hauling) 13 Summary: Bridge is Best Option Passenger Experience Offers a better passenger experience Offers a unique opportunity: image and views Capacity/Future Flexibility Yields a smaller footprint Offers opportunity for future two way travel Construction Impacts Effects less impact to airport operations Capital Cost Is more cost effective Maintenance Cost Is minimally more Risk Presents less risk 14 Customer Service Metrics Customer Service at Peak 1973 2013 IAF 2018 International Wide-Body Gates: ~4 11 20 Hold on Boards: 0 23 0 Hold in corridors: 0 339 0 Over Ramp Busing possible times/day: 0 2 0 Lines at "Primary" (Passport Check): 0 Long Modest Crowding at baggage International Carousels: 0 Extreme Low Terminal Carousel: 0 Medium Low Double Bag Handing: FIS & Bag Claim: Yes Yes No STS Train Wait (minutes): Low 4 (2nd Train) n/a Minimum Connect Time (minutes): n/a 90 75 15 Next Steps: July 29, 2014 Action Items Authorize procurement of connector as part of the IAF progressive design build contract Authorize additional funding of $16 million for the new IAF Advertise a Request for Qualifications to procure a design-build team Authorize use of Port crews 16 Thank you 17
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.