7a supp reduced
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.
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.