ITEM NO:       7a_Supp .
DATE OF MEETING:  July 12, 2016 
SUSTAINABLE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN 
(SAMP) UPDATE
July 12, 2016

Briefing overview
Where we are in the planning process
Gate expansion concepts
North terminal roadways
Landside people mover alternatives
Aircraft maintenance facilities
South Aviation Support Area (SASA)
Next Steps
Public outreach
Sustainability integration
Environmental review
2

Where we are in the planning process
Current work
Conducting additional airside modeling with refined rules base for use of
aircraft hold positions and gates
Estimating the timing of need for aircraft hold positions to inform
recommended layout of facilities and phasing plan
Continued modeling to estimate delay in outer years and determine benefit of
airside improvements
Developing and assessing options for North Airport Expressway
Assessing impacts of runway/taxiway separation
Evaluating options for landside People Movers


3

Where we are in the planning process
Current work
Developing layouts for area west of airfield to accommodate displaced
facilities
Developed alternative layouts for SASA
Cargo
Aircraft maintenance
Commercial development
Buffering
On-going work to explore phasing for gates, terminal and hardstands



4

SAMP planning schedule
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) (Q1 2016  Q3 2016) 
Constructability assessment
Phased implementation plan
Planning level cost estimates
Capital program & plan of finance (Q1 2016  Q1 2017)
FAA ALP review (Q4 2016  Q3 2017)
Environmental review (Q2 2016  Q4 2017) 



5

Gate expansion concepts
Variations on gate expansion 
Three pier gate expansion to the north 



U-shaped gate expansion to the north 



Variations on gate expansion involve pros and cons       6

Gate expansion concepts
Pros & cons of three pier gate expansion concept 
Pros:                        Cons: 
Provides same gate capacity as U-shaped  Relatively inflexible string of
Relatively flexible string of dimension      dimensions from south to north
from west to east                  No additional aircraft hold positions
Potentially easier to integrate with       Less flexibility for gating airlines
roadways                    Less flexibility for phasing in gates
Middle pier provides greater opportunity
for shared holdrooms and concessions



Three pier concept provides no additional aircraft hold positions   7

Gate expansion concepts
Pros & cons of U-shaped gate expansion concept 
Pros:                        Cons: 
Provides same gate capacity as three piers  Relatively inflexible string of
Additional aircraft hold positions provided   dimensions from west to east
in ideal location west of gates          Difficult to integrate with roadways
Greater flexibility for gating airlines      Single loaded concourse provides less
Greater flexibility for phasing in gates      opportunity for shared holdrooms and
Relatively flexible string of dimension      concessions
from south to north



U-shaped concept provides additional aircraft hold positions and operational flexibility 8

North terminal roadways
U-shaped gate expansion and roadways challenges
Provide north terminal ingress and egress
Determine alignment and elevation of APM or bus guideway and stations
Optimize regional and local access
Assess potential trade-offs with north gate expansion
Provide airside and landside access to relocated ARFF (east of existing)
Building 3-D model in
AutoCAD to set
geometry of facilities
in North Terminal area



Integration of gate expansion and roadways is challenging due to space constraints  9

North terminal roadways
Latest iteration of roadway system plan 



DRAFT  refinements in progress
Opportunities
Supports continuous Service Tunnel along Air Cargo Rd alignment
Slip ramp access to North Terminal & Main Terminal from S. 160th St.
Challenges
North Terminal egress to WB SR518 difficult due to weave over short distance
North Terminal parking & some ground transportation egress may be limited to
S. 160th St. only
Access at S 170th St. may be limited to Main Terminal
Integration of gate expansion and roadways is challenging due to space constraints 10

Landside people mover alternatives
Preliminary landside options
Developed 4 APM options and 1 elevated busway option
Conducted decision analysis to screen options
Further study
Will recommend shortlist of landside options for further study by SAMP
consultant
Study will also include assessment of airside people movers:
Passenger flow analysis
Diagrammatic layout concepts for APM, power walks and busing
Identify airside options for connecting North Satellite and future gates
Capacity analysis for APM, power walks and busing
Transfer time evaluation for pax between international and domestic flights
Capacity assessment of existing Satellite Transit System (STS) trains

Will study airside people mover options & short list of landside options 11

Landside people mover alternatives
Option 1: APM, 1 station at level 4 garage (NW corner)
Option 2: APM, 1 station at level 6 garage (center, west edge)
Option 3: APM, 2 stations at level 6 garage (NE corner & SE corner)
Option 4: APM, 2 stations at level 1 garage (NW corner & SW corner)
Option 5: Bus, 2 stations at level 6 garage (between upper drive & garage)




12

Landside people mover alternatives
Option 1: APM, 1 station at level 4 garage (NW corner)
Pros:                        Cons: 
Relatively open, greenfield site at main    Difficult wayfinding from the south
terminal                       Long walking distance from the south





Option 1: APM, 1 station at level 4 garage
13

Landside people mover alternatives
Option 2: APM, 1 station at level 6 garage (center, west edge)
Pros:                        Cons: 
Visible location, centrally located and     Relatively high initial cost
adjacent to terminal                Complexities with maintaining
operations with construction in garage





Option 2: APM, 1 station at level 6 garage
14

Landside people mover alternatives
Option 3: APM, 2 stations at level 6 garage (NE corner & SE corner)
Pros:                        Cons: 
Most direct access from main terminal    Difficult wayfinding
and light rail station                 Relatively high initial cost
Complexities with maintaining
operations with construction in garage
Significant reduction in parking
capacity



Option 3: APM, 2 stations at level 6 garage
15

Landside people mover alternatives
Option 4: APM, 2 stations at level 1 garage (NW corner & SW corner)
Pros:                        Cons: 
Difficult wayfinding
Relatively high initial cost
Greater number of level changes
Significant reduction in parking
capacity




Option 4: APM, 2 stations at level 1 garage
16

Landside people mover alternatives
Option 5: Bus, 2 stations at level 6 garage (between upper drive & garage)
Pros:                        Cons: 
Visible location, centrally located and     High operator cost makes on-going cost
adjacent to terminal                 comparable to other options
Ability to incorporate guideway into RCF   Complexities with maintaining
busing design                    operations with construction adjacent
Relatively short walking distances        to Lower Drive and garage
Less level changes at RCF            Would limit ability to widen Upper Drive
Relatively low initial cost



Option 5: Bus, 2 stations at level 6 garage
17

Aircraft maintenance facilities
Aircraft maintenance facilities relocation 
Estimating timing of need for aircraft hold positions through airside
simulation modeling
Informs construction phasing and relocation of aircraft maintenance
hangars
Full south end hardstands are also needed for Remain Over Night
(RON) parking for passenger aircraft




Full south end hardstands are needed for RON parking for passenger aircraft 18

Aircraft maintenance facilities
Variations on aircraft maintenance locations 
All aircraft maintenance in SASA 



Aircraft maintenance split between SASA and north cargo area 



Aircraft maintenance in north cargo area involves trade-offs with cargo   19

South Aviation Support Area
SASA alternative facilities layouts 
Aircraft maintenance split between SASA and north cargo area
Would reduce the overall number of cargo aircraft parking positions
GRE not located in convenient place for north end maintenance





Aircraft maintenance in north cargo area involves trade-offs with cargo   20

South Aviation Support Area
SASA alternative facilities layouts 
Option 1: Commercial development on east side with buffer extending
north and reduced cargo area






Option 1 reduces cargo area to provide additional commercial development   21

South Aviation Support Area
SASA alternative facilities layouts 
Option 2: Commercial development in south east corner with buffer extending
north and less space for uses such as ground service equipment (GSE) storage






Option 2 provides a greater commercial footprint, but less area for GSE storage    22

South Aviation Support Area
SASA alternative facilities layouts 
Option 3: Reduced commercial development south east corner with buffer
extending north and space provided for uses such as GSE storage






Option 3 provides smaller commercial footprint and more area for GSE storage   23

Next steps
Critical path to preferred alternative
Refine North Airport Expressway (NAE) concept
Optimize regional and local access
Develop high level phasing plan for roadway construction
Develop implementation plan and plan of finance
Phasing plan for gate expansion and hardstand construction
Assess benefit/cost and constructability of airside improvements
Refine cost estimates and develop finance scenarios
Seek Commission guidance
August 23 meeting: Review progress toward preferred alternative
draft implementation plan and order of magnitude cost
September 27 meeting: Staff recommendation on preferred alternative
Implementation plan refinements, cost estimate refinements and potential
means of financing capital program

Will continue to seek Commission guidance as preferred alternative is developed  24

Continuing public outreach
Community open houses 
1st Series: SAMP process, goals, forecast (March 2015)
2nd Series: Major Plan Elements (March 2016)
3rd Series: Preferred Development Alternative (Q3 2016)
Commission Roundtables
February, March, April, June  completed
August and September  planning underway
Targeted engagement with external stakeholders (Q2)
Social justice community leaders
Airport-area business leaders
Ongoing engagement with tenants, operators, FAA, & TSA
Quarterly outreach report and coordination with Port calendars
Environmental Review begins mid-2016 
Coordinated outreach program between SAMP and environmental
Gathering input and creating wide public understanding     25

Sustainability integration
Sustainability goals and objectives
Master Plan work is designed to meet sustainability goals in the Century
Agenda, Airport's strategic goals, and in our new Strategy for a
Sustainable Sea-Tac (S3)
Integrating sustainability in three phases
What and where we build
How we build
How we operate



Sustainability considered in addition to traditional planning requirements 26

Sustainability integration
Screening development concepts
Developing concepts for:
Airfield
Terminal
Landside
Defining requirements:
Meet demand
No new runways
Increase efficiency, consistent with sustainability
Airfield improvements and NextGen to accommodate growth
Develop airfield simulation for concept
Converting sustainability goals into evaluation criteria

Many planning principles incorporate sustainability        27

Sustainability integration
What and where we build: Screening example






Continue synergy between planning and sustainability principles    28

Sustainability integration
Green buildings
Approach for evaluating the gap between goals and future emissions
Build spreadsheet model to measures energy, water, GHGs, and operational costs
Evaluate building options (BAU, LEED Silver, net zero/neutral)
Estimate future emissions based on energy and water use
Preliminary results
5 to 10% improvement in natural gas use with sustainable building attributes
Approximately 70% reduction in lighting energy use with advanced technology





Sustainable building model provides more refined estimates of future Port-owned emissions 29

Sustainability integration
How we manage: Initiatives and plan
Develop Sustainability Management Plan to reduce the gap
Assess a broad range of programs, initiatives, and actions to determine what's
feasible/realistic
Understand our ability to reach goals
Make recommendations and finalize Sustainability Management Plan




High dependence on how we manage compared to how we build    30

SAMP environmental review

NEPA will be conducted to comply with FAA requirements
SEPA will be conducted to comply with Port of Seattle Commission
Resolution No. 3650
23 environmental categories will be evaluated under NEPA and SEPA
Landrum and Brown was selected to conduct the environmental review
analysis
Currently evaluating baseline conditions and developing a public and
agency outreach strategy
Expected to be complete in Q4 2017.