7a Supp
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
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.