7a supp 1
Item No.: 7a_supp_1 Date of Meeting: August 6, 2013 BAGGAGE RECAPITALIZATION / OPTIMIZATION NEAR TERM PROBLEMS AND LONG TERM SOLUTIONS FOR AIRPORT MISSION CRITICAL BAGGAGE INFRASTRUCTURE Briefing to the Port of Seattle Commission August 6, 2013 2 Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Immediate Problems Explosive Detection Machines (EDS) maintenance cost EDS life span-almost time to replace Staffing-spread across six areas Working conditions: Conditioned (heating/cooling) work areas Safety (lifting) Federal budget pressures 3 Airport's Long-Term Problem 33 Million Annual Passengers (MAP) now Need to double to 60 MAP Existing baggage configuration won't make it past 45 MAP Need to move forward now to Optimize baggage configuration to accommodate airport growth to 60 MAP 4 Joint TSA and Airport Solution 14 months of work with the TSA has allowed the selection of the best alternative and 30% design progress. Use TSA funds for Airport long term 60 MAP solution Solves TSA problems Reconfigures baggage to an expandable configuration to first reach 45 MAP, then 60 MAP in the future Avoids short term fixes that cannot effectively meet 60 MAP TSA funds available now will lessen the Airport's long-term costs 5 Contents The Problem and the Solution Prior Briefings and History Existing Baggage Systems Recapitalization Optimization Optimization Options Costs Century Agenda TSA Timeline Summary and Recommendation 6 Prior Briefings and History Briefings: January 8, 2013 January 22, 2013 ETD EDS Fan Post-9/11: Passengers had to cross lobby twice Check Bag Bag In Check Drop 7 Explosive Detection Systems Timeline # of EDS Miles of # of BHS Notes Conveyor Systems Pre-9/11 2 5 10+ * during 9/11 38* 6 10+ construction Post-9/11 27 9.5 6 (current) **one common Proposed 11 9 1** BHS system 8 Existing Baggage Systems 9 C1/C88 Baggage Systems 10 Recapitalization Summary TSA only provides EDS equipment Replace existing EDS equipment with new EDS (27 = 33 MAP) Add EDS equipment as needed for growth (10-16 = 45 MAP Max) No change to conveyor configuration or building Current throughput stays the same; capacity remains the same Maximum capacity is 45 MAP even after additional EDS are added Notes Does not meet current and future baggage demand and Airport growth Must add 11 EDS and conveyors to reach 45 MAP All future baggage handling systems (BHS) infrastructure (main lines, power, conveyors) will be 100% Airport cost Addition of new buildings will also be 100% Airport cost 11 Optimization Summary TSA provides replacement of existing EDS machines with new EDS machines and upgrades to conveyors and infrastructure (main lines, power, conveyors, belts) Changes conveyor configuration to single, consolidated system with redundancy Provides capacity to 45 MAP Designed for future Airport growth to 60 MAP Notes Bags go from any check-in or transfer location to any output position Reduces Checked Baggage Resolution Areas from 6 to 1 centralized location 12 Effects Stakeholder Recapitalization Optimization TSA Little change in TSA cost Lower TSA costs High staffing Fewer staff Same # of EDS Fewer # of EDS Work areas unchanged Improved work area Same budget pressure Less budget pressure Added EDS necessary for Capacity to 45 MAP and beyond 45 MAP maximum Airport Separate configurations Single configuration Can't reach beyond 45 MAP Growth potential for 60 MAP Must optimize later Little terminal expansion Terminal expansion and new EDS won't affect gates gates necessary to reach 45 Future flexibility MAP Airlines Baggage customer service Airline growth and moves can be challenges as construction accommodated continually disrupts operations Cost Less initially, but operationally 11 EDS @ 45 MAP painful and requires costly 15 EDS @ 60 MAP growth later 37 EDS @ 45 MAP max 60 MAP unattainable 13 Recapitalization 6 TSA Areas 14 Optimization - Analyzed 7 Options Design Alternate B1 15 Optimization Alternate D - Preferred 16 Recapitalization vs. Optimization Components Recapitalization Optimization Million Annual Passengers 45 MAX 45 and Beyond Later Optimize Machines 27 Now, Need 10-16 more 11-15 Impact to Operations High Medium Customer Service Low High Building Expansion High Medium Potentially 'dead-end' Yes No Construction 17 Recapitalization vs. Optimization Costs Notes: All costs shown are capital costs Cost shown in today's dollars TSA contribution $50M-100M not included above Cost estimates based on pre 30% design levels 18 Alignment with the Century Agenda 'Meet the region's transportation needs at Sea-Tac for the next 25 years' Optimization allows Airport to grow to its ultimate capacity of 60 MAP in 25+ years 'Meet all increased energy needs through conservation and renewable sources' Optimization allows fewer machines to save energy Opportunity to improve controls and add high efficiency conveyor components to save energy 19 TSA Timeline Design start: February 25th 30% design submittal: June 12th Approved 30% TSA design submittal: July 12th Receive notification of TSA funding level August 15th Overall program cost estimate finalized August 21st Commission Authorization September 10th Execute Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) September 11th Congressional notification September 18th (+5 business days from OTA) Congressional approval September 25th 20 Summary The Airport will continue to grow Existing baggage configuration won't make it past 45 MAP even with Recapitalization efforts Need to move forward now to Optimize baggage configuration to accommodate airport growth to 60 MAP Unique opportunity with TSA reimbursing the airport for $50M-$100M (TBD) in program costs New system would be more reliable, energy efficient and in line with Century Agenda Goals 21 Recommendation Continue finalization of an agreement with TSA to create an optimized baggage system that will allow the airport to grow and achieve our century agenda goals. Contingent on approval of TSA funds in the amount of $50-$100M Continue to work with airlines on long term baggage plans Continue design and cost estimating effort 22
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.