3b supp
Forum on Seattle-Tacoma International Airport's International Arrivals Facility: Financing, Planning, and Technology Commission Meeting July 28, 2015 Continuing the 90-day review May 26 commission motion June 23 contract award July 14 forum Today's forum overview 1. Airport Finance Overview (continued) 2. IAF Planning History 3. Independent Architectural Review 4. Design-Build Contractor and Validation Process 5. Customs & Border Protection; Technology at Federal Inspection Service Facilities Next meeting on August 11 An ongoing effort 2 Airport Finance Overview (continued) Borgan Anderson Director Aviation Finance and Budget Jim Burchett Vice President, AvAirPros Warren Adams Managing Partner, WJ Advisors 3 Introduction Background previous IAF funding briefings: January 27 and April 14 Motion: May 26 July 14Airport finance Today Identify sources of funds used for international facility projects Consultants: Jim Burchett, AV Air Pros Warren Adams, WJ Advisors LLC Today is a follow-on to the July 14 presentation 4 Scope of Services 1. Identify other international arrival facility (IAF) projects at United States (U.S.) airports 2. Review the sources of funds for those projects 3. Identify the level of passenger facility charge (PFC) revenues used to fund IAF projects 4. Review the number of international and domestic passengers at the same airports 5. Respond to questions from the July 14 Port Commission meeting Key question: How do other airports fund international facilities? 5 Important Information An IAF project includes an international arrivals facility or international terminal building For some airports, specific international arrivals facility project information was not available We relied upon publicly available information, including PFC uses from FAA records We focused on the use of PFC revenues to fund IAF project costs; this occurs by paying project costs during construction and in paying debt service on bonds Results based on publicly available information 6 Criteria for Selecting IAF Projects Facilities that are in use at U.S. airports Large-hub U.S. airports IAF projects that were funded by airports, not airlines IAF projects that were funded by different funding sources, including PFC revenues PFC funded costs cannot be included in airline rates and charges Focused on comparable facilities at large hub U.S. airports 7 PFC Regulations and Use Focuses on project eligibility only; does not stipulate how much PFC revenue should be used to fund a particular project The use of PFC revenue to fund a particular project is determined by the airport operator All 11 airports discussed in this document used varying amounts of PFC revenues to fund IAF project costs This can be viewed as an indication of PFC- eligibility for these types of projects International facilities meet FAA eligibility criteria for use of PFCs 8 PFC Regulation, continued Consultation with airlines is provided before imposing and using a PFC Airlines can submit written agreement or disagreement for a project, which is required to be submitted to FAA FAA makes determination to approve PFC application 9 Airport/Airline Business Arrangements FAA policy on rates and charges encourages local negotiations between airports and airlines SLOA III was the outcome of local negotiations; airlines with 99.9% of passengers in 2013 signed SLOA III SLOA III created an FIS separate cost center SLOA III specifically states that Port cash (nonairline revenue) can be used to lower the FIS fee paid by airline users of the FIS SLOA III forecast assumed use of PFCs in IAF funding plan 10 IAF Project at SEA New IAF would be used by all international deplaning passengers at SEA 10.6% of SEA enplaned passengers in 2019 are forecast to be international passengers $608m project cost; opening date: 2019 Scenario 6 from April 14 recommendation assumed the following sources: $200m of Port cash, $100m of PFCs to directly fund project costs, and $308m of revenue bonds Comparisons on following slides based on Scenario 6 from April 14 11 UseofPFCsatSEA PFC can be used to fund projects or to pay PFC-eligible debt service - Scenario 6 at SEA assumed the following: Funding Sources and Use of PFC Revenues (millions) Effective Use 0f PFCS for IAF percent of IAF Funding Percent of Construction Pay Debt costs paid with Sources Total Costs Service Total PFCs PFCs Port Cash $ 200 33% PFCs to fund project costs S 100 16% S 100 Revenue bond proceeds S 308 51% $ 250 Total funding sources 5 608 100% S 100 S 250 S 350 57.6% 12 Finding #1 Of the 11 airports meeting the criteria, all used PFCs. The PFC% ranged from: A low of 8.1% at Miami International Airport A high of 82.6% at Boston Logan International Airport Scenario 6 for the IAF at SEA proposes 57.5% (within the range) The results on the next page are organized by year of when the facility opened All recent international facilities use PFCs as funding source 13 Finding #1 PERCENTAGE OF PROJECT COSTS PAID BY PFC REVENUES FOR IAF / INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL PROJECTS OVER TIME 100% 95% 2000 - 2005 2011 - 2014 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 82.6% 40% 35% 71.9% 65.1% 30% 60.3% 62.2% 57.7% 57.5% 53.7% 25% 46.3% 44.6% 20% 15% 30.5% 10% 5% 8.1% 0% DEN (1995) SFO (2000) MSP (2001) DTW McNamara BOS (2005) DFW (2005) IAH Central FIS IAD (2011) ATL (2012) MIA (2012) (a) LAX (2014) SEA (2019) (2002) (2005) Approximate Airport and (IAF/International Terminal Opening Date) (a) The percent of costs paid by PFC revenues for international arrivals facilities at MIA is low because PFC eligibility far exceeds PFC capacity. A large portion of available PFC revenues are used to pay debt service for general terminal facilities at MIA, and only 8.1% is used to pay debt service for international arrivals facilities. This percent varies from year to year based on management decisions at MIA. Sea-Tac's proposed use of PFCs is similar to other airports 14 Finding #2 The percent of PFC revenues used to fund IAF project costs typically exceeds the percent of international passengers to total enplaned passengers Passenger data is for the year when the facility opened For SEA, we used forecast 2019 passengers and Scenario 6 sources of funds No apparent connection between % of int'l passengers and PFC allocation 15 Finding #2 Percentage of IAF/International Terminal Project Cost Paid with PFCs vs International Passengers as % of Total 90% 82.6% % of IAF/Int'l Terminal Cost Paid with PFCs 80% 71.9% Int'l Passengers as % of Total 70% 65.1% 62.2% 60.3% 60% 57.7% 57.5% 53.7% 51.0% 50% 46.3% 44.6% 40% 30.5% 30% 28.4% 27.0% 20.0% 20% 17.4% 15.7% 10.3% 10.6% 9.5% 10% 8.3% 7.0% 8.1% 0.7% 0% BOS (2005) ATL (2012) IAH Central FIS IAD (2011) MSP (2001) DTW McNamara SEA (2019) DEN (1995) DFW (2005) LAX (2014) SFO (2000) MIA (2012) (a) (2005) (2002) (a) The percent of costs paid by PFC revenues for international arrivals facilities at MIA is low because PFC eligibility far exceeds PFC capacity. A large portion of available PFC revenues are used to pay debt service for general terminal facilities at MIA, and only 8.1% is used to pay debt service for international arrivals facilities. This percent varies from year to year based on management decisions at MIA. Percentage of PFC funding for Sea-Tac is within the range of other airports 16 Responses to July 14 Questions 1. Airports with agreements, but no majority-in- interest (MII) provisions--Denver International Airport (DEN), George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) 2. Examples of where airlines have reduced or eliminated service due to CPE increases Difficult question to answer as service decisions are influenced by competition, local economy, and other factors Each airport is different 17 Responses to July 14 Questions 3. Examples where FIS is a separate cost center--LAX, DEN, IAH FIS costs paid by airlines at LAX are after nonairline revenue credits FIS costs paid by airlines at DEN are effectively after certain nonairline revenue credits Each airport is different 18 Comparison of CPE LARGE HUBS--Projected Passenger Airline CPE Note: Each airport is different in terms of what the airlines operate/pay for directly and what the airport operator provides and charges airlines Airport and through rates and charges. CPE does not factor in what airlines operate/pay for directly. As such, not all CPE comparisons are appropriate. Projection Year IAD (FY18) $26.24 $4.88 EWR * $30.29 JFK * $25.70 ORD (FY22) $18.39 $6.75 SFO (FY21) $15.78 $8.08 LAX (FY20) Year for each projected increase $13.59 $9.23 is shown at left next to airport MIA (FY19) $20.54 $1.27 code. For example, projected increase for IAD is in FY18. LGA * $18.73 BOS (FY18) $13.55 $3.75 MDW (FY22) $12.12 $2.14 DFW (FY20) $7.53 $6.51 SEA (FY24) $11.49 $2.34 DEN (FY20) $12.40 $1.36 FY 2014 PDX (FY21) $10.39 $3.18 Projected Increase DCA (FY18) $11.32 $2.20 PHL (FY16) $11.74 $1.38 LAS (FY17) $11.74 $0.43 HNL (FY19) $7.77 $4.37 Large Hub Average, Maximum, and Quartiles -- PROJECTED SAN (FY18) $10.49 $0.66 $35 $31.12 IAH (FY15) $10.44 $0.53 $30 DTW (FY22) ** $10.49 DTW FY22 CPE = $9.82 $25 BWI (FY15) ** $9.88 BWI FY15 CPE = $9.12 $20 $18.37 FLL (FY19) $4.52 $2.87 $14.24 $15 $13.32 TPA (FY23) $5.23 $1.97 $10 $8.01 MSP (FY18) $6.84 $0.06 $5 SLC (FY20) $3.90 $2.36 $0 ATL (FY17) $5.37 $0.81 Large Hub Max CPE 3rd Quartile: 2nd Quartile: 1st Quartile: Average CPE 75% of data 50% of data 25% of data PHX (FY16) $5.79 $0.23 points fall points fall points fall MCO (FY16) below this CPE below this CPE below this CPE $4.59 $1.28 CLT (FY17) $1.33 $0.49 $- $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $12 $13 $14 $15 $16 $17 $18 $19 $20 $21 $22 $23 $24 $25 $26 $27 $28 $29 $30 $31 $32 * Projection not available. ** Projected CPE for this airport is less than the FY 2014 CPE shown. Sources: FY 2014 data--CAFRs/annual reports, rating agency press releases, and/or bond official statements. FAA CATS data used if those sources are not available. Projected data--Primarily bond official statements. In some cases, rating agency press releases, budgets, or reports/studies. The ranking of SEA's cost per enplaned passenger would not materially change 19 Questions? 20 International Arrivals Facility Planning History Elizabeth Leavitt Director Aviation Planning and Environmental Services Ross Payton Principal, AIA, Corgan Options Considered Over 50 Federal Inspection Services (FIS) and Connector Options Considered During Last 10 Years Slot control adjusting flight arrival times Technology and process improvement U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staffing, POS staffing, Automated Passport Control (APC), holding passengers on planes or in corridor Mid-term FIS Gate use, immigration, bag claim, customs, security checkpoint, train Long-term FIS at South SSAT, Concourse A, split, under taxilane, remote Long-term FIS at North Concourse D, NSAT Connector between SSAT and IAF Tunnel, bridge, busing, modify existing train system Over 50 FIS and Connector Options Considered During Last 10 Years 22 2009 FIS Study Study by HOK on Long-Term FIS Options Two options recommended for further analysis 23 2009 FIS Study Study by HOK on Long-Term FIS Options Two options recommended for further analysis 24 2011 Consideration of Slot Control Potential Option to Reduce Peak Loads by Spreading Flight Arrival Times Potential mid-term capacity enhancement option Rejected by airlines (difficult due to system-wide issues) Slot control is not a viable option for airlines 25 2012 FIS Mid-Term Capacity Enhancement Potential Improvements within Footprint to Increase Capacity at $37M Cost Difficult to expand outside walls due to underground location 26 2012 IAF Mid-Term Potential Improvements to Increase Capacity at Minimal Cost Potential mid-term capacity enhancement from 1,200 1,600 pax/hr Additional queue space at primary inspection Additional "small" bag claim devices Rejected by Alaska and Delta Decision to move to other longer-term options Existing underground location too small beyond 1,600 pax/hr Need larger space than South Satellite to accommodate FIS demand Difficult to expand while maintaining operations Mid-Term option does not provide needed capacity 27 2013 IAF Landside vs Airside Four Potential Options for Long-Term Capacity Option 1 New Concourse A FIS Option 2 Expand SSAT FIS Option 3 Expand FIS w/ Dogleg Gates Option 4 Split FIS Options 1 and 4 most promising 28 2013 IAF Landside vs Airside Four Potential Options for Long-Term Capacity Options 1 and 4 most promising 29 2013 IAF Landside vs Airside Refinement of Potential Options for Long-Term Capacity Single Landside IAF Only Split Landside IAF & Renovated FIS Passenger processing capacity 1,900 pax/hr in Phase 1 2,600 pax/hr in Phase 2 Phase 1 gate capacity Widebody gates on two concourses (12 on South Satellite & 8 on Concourse A) Single landside option ranked best 30 2013 IAF Landside vs Airside Single Landside IAF Only Pros Least initial cost (majority of savings in Phase 1) Shortest international to domestic connect times Local passengers exit directly onto street pre-security (majority of pax) Local passengers do not claim bags twice or ride train Easy access for construction workers and equipment (pre-security) Cons IAF needs to be elevated to anticipate future terminal development Single landside option ranked best 31 2013 IAF Landside vs Airside Split Landside IAF & Renovated FIS Pros Greater flexibility for future development at south end of Main terminal Cons Greater initial cost (majority of additional cost in Phase 1) Longest international to domestic connect times Local passengers at SSAT exit post-security (majority of pax) Local passengers at SSAT claim bags twice and ride train Requires expensive STS train improvement to provide adequate capacity No space for expanded security checkpoint at SSAT Difficult access for construction workers and equipment (post-security) Underground expansion impacts many gates during construction IAF needs to be elevated to anticipate future terminal development Split option ranked worst 32 2014 IAF Recommended Option Connector Bridge Option Connection to from South Satellite IAF via overhead bridge 33 2014 IAF Recommended Option Bridge vs Tunnel Connector Tunnel Option Connection from South Satellite to IAF via underground tunnel 34 2014 IAF Recommended Option Bridge vs Tunnel Decision Matrix Bridge better than tunnel after evaluation 35 2014 IAF Recommended Option Bridge vs Tunnel Bridge Option Pros Lowest cost (both initial and ongoing) Least impact to operations during construction (shorter duration) Easier wayfinding for passengers Opportunity for unique iconic image Cons Greater maintenance and inspection Bridge better than tunnel after evaluation 36 2014 IAF Recommended Option Bridge vs Tunnel Tunnel Option Pros No FAA airspace issues to resolve Cons Greater cost (both initial and ongoing) Significant impact to gate access during construction with open cut Significant risk of collapse with deep tunnel Significant risk of ramp damage and 12 month impact with shallow tunnel Greater impact to operations during construction (longer duration) Bridge better than tunnel after evaluation 37 2014 IAF Recommended Option Airline Review Airline Technical Representative (ATR) led review of IAF Planning Document with airlines Functional program accepted by airlines participating in review IAF functional program accepted by participating airlines 38 Independent Architectural Review Andy Bell Airport Market Sector Lead, Kimley-Horn Kiran Merchant CEO, DY Consultants Mike Doucette Deputy Executive Director, Los Angeles World Airports Peer Review Proposed International Arrivals Facility (IAF) Seattle Tacoma International Airport July 28. 2015 Andy Bell Professional Resume 43 years of experience in planning, design and construction of Airport Development Projects Currently Airport Market Sector Lead with Kimley-Horn in Atlanta Formerly Vice President of Planning for Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport (DFW) Responsible for the Airport Development Plan which defined over $3B in terminal, roadway, parking and rail projects Developed phased expansion strategies for International Gates and passenger processing facilities Managing Executive for Skylink Automated People Mover at DFW Directed design and construction for world's largest APM system connecting 6 terminals Formerly Deputy General Manager of Planning & Development for the Atlanta Airport Oversight for final design and construction of new International Concourse E, largest in North America Responsible for Airport Master Plan and airline approvals for $5.4B in terminal, airfield, roadway, consolidated rental car, and parking facilities Created the "Vision" and master plan for a new Concourse F International Terminal Peer Review proposed IAF Facility July 28, 2015 DFW - International Terminal D 28 Gates 2 million square feet $1.2B development cost Opened July 2005 3,100 Int'l passengers/hour arrival capacity APC, Global Entry, Modified One-Stop DFW Phased Development Strategy for Int'l Growth Walk Distances to CBP Processing Expand Sterile 3,275 Corridor for Int'l Feet 2,595 Feet Gates Bus 1,820 Optimize Feet Terminal D Interf ace Add A-380 1,060 Gates 2,040 1,140 Feet Feet Feet Phase in Terminal F Less than or equal to DFW's acceptable walk distance Gates Greater than DFW's acceptable walk distance Hardstanding Aircraft A New Paradigm for DFW Bus Gate Built as part of original facility Supports COBUS operation for convenient connection to Sterile Corridor Critical support during transition to new gates to meet growing demand Sloped Ramps provide convenient and fast way to load/unload at aircraft ATL International Concourse E and Terminal F International Concourse E 2 million Square Feet Opened 1994 28 gates FIS Connecting "Concourse E is wonderful but you still have to fix the broken arm..Atlanta needs to have a direct connection to landside to be a global competitor". Atlanta Int'l Business Community FIS Terminating Terminal F & Connecting Opened 2012 12 Gates 24/7 FIS Landside Access IAF Planning Process - Observations Holistic Approach Airport and Airline Stakeholders Engaged during the Process Demand Driven Sustainability Factors incorporated Thorough Examination of Site in the Planning Process Alternatives Importance of cost and customer New Innovative Ideas experience not lost in the process uncovered during process Result: Clear Objectives and Due Diligence exceeds Project Definition Industry Norms IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside Hardstand and Busing Strategy Potential Bus Interface Convenient Access to FIS Accommodate Arrivals & Some Departures IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside Hardstand and Busing Strategy Potential Congestion/Chokepoints in Customs/ReCheck/SSCP Area IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside Hardstand and Busing Strategy Potential Congestion/Chokepoints in Customs/ReCheck/SSCP Area Clarify Potential Conflict with GT Lot under Building IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside Hardstand and Busing Strategy Potential Congestion/Chokepoints in Customs/ReCheck/SSCP Area Clarify Potential Conflict with GT Lot under Building Ensure Central Utility Plant capacities can support new IAF space and future expansion Ensure Curbside is balanced with IAF demand Elevators sized to accommodate carts, wheelchairs and aging population IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside Hardstand and Busing Strategy Potential Congestion/Chokepoints in Customs/ReCheck/SSCP Area Clarify Potential Conflict with GT Lot under Building Ensure Central Utility Plant capacities can support new IAF space and future expansion Verify that Curbside is balanced with IAF demand Elevators sized to accommodate carts, wheelchairs and aging population Technology will assist in "Future Proofing" the IAF Facilities IAF Development Challenges/Opportunities Bridge vs Tunnel from SSA to Landside Hardstand and Busing Strategy Potential Congestion/Chokepoints in Customs/ReCheck/SSCP Area Clarify Potential Conflict with GT Lot under Building Ensure Central Utility Plant capacities can support new IAF space and future expansion Verify that the Curbside is balanced with IAF demand Elevators sized to accommodate carts, wheelchairs and aging population Technology will assist in "Future Proofing" the IAF Facilities Progressive Design-Build project delivery approach is excellent path to ensure collaboration, cost/schedule controls and minimize "Buyer's Remorse". Peer Review Proposed International Arrivals Facility (IAF) Seattle Tacoma International Airport July 28. 2015 International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review International Arrivals Facility Program Review SeattleTacoma International Airport 55 Independent Expert Review July 28, 2015 International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review Kiran Merchant CEO DY Consultants 30 years of experience at over 50 airports worldwide Formerly Head of Planning for Port Authority of New York New Jersey, busiest airport system in the world. Experience includes planning oversight of several major terminal development projects, such as: JFK T4, Terminal Expansion Program for Delta Airlines JFK T5i, new international terminal for JetBlue Airlines JFK T8, new international terminal for American Airlines EWR Terminal A, new 35 gate domestic terminal Formerly Director of Facilities for Continental Airlines Oversight of Newark Terminal C international terminal, global gateway project Director of Facilities Design and Construction for TWA Managed Capital Improvement Projects for 72 Airports System SeattleTacoma International Airport 56 Independent Expert Review July 28, 2015 International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review JFK Terminal 4 International Arriving PAX Demand 2,500 Total FIS Space Program 210,000 sft. International arrival gates 25 contact gates, 11 HS positions Passport Control positions - 54 APC Kiosk 66 Global entry kiosks - 24 Baggage claim devices (7) 250 LF devices Customs Positions 9 Recheck positions - 6 SeattleTacoma International Airport 57 Independent Expert Review July 28, 2015 International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review JFK JetBlue T5i International Arriving PAX Demand 1,000 ( Planned for 1400) Total FIS Space Program 128,000 sft. International arrival gates 6 contact gates, 3 HS positions with bus loop Passport Control positions - 14 APC Kiosk 42 Global entry kiosks - 9 Baggage claim devices (2) 280 LF devices Customs Positions 4 Recheck positions - 4 SeattleTacoma International Airport 58 Independent Expert Review July 28, 2015 International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review IAF Program Strengths Well Defined Process & project organization. Intuitive Passenger flow Good Project definition and methodology. Strong Arrivals Experience Focus on value-driven design. Landside facility creates least Decisions made with financial impacts in mind. operational disruptions Positive partnering Easier access to construction site SeattleTacoma International Airport 59 Independent Expert Review July 28, 2015 International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review Integrated Development Process Streamlined delivery model. Ensures on-time and latest CBP thinking. Structured start up process. Early stakeholder engagement and agreement. Incremental development process. Cost control throughout process. Optimization of existing infrastructure. SeattleTacoma International Airport 60 Independent Expert Review July 28, 2015 International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review Potential Challenges 1. Narrow exit paths - Customs, Recheck and SSCP could back up in situations of arrival delays. 2. Baggage first solution needs bigger space in claim area due to passengers arriving before bags and requires proper Queuing widths and may need alternate Queuing patterns. (Less turns). 3. Entrance to Baggage Cart route to the feeder belts may need to be widened 4. Smarte Cart Return route needs some refinement. 5. Terminating Passengers at the Arrivals frontage may create some congestion at the south end of terminal complex SeattleTacoma International Airport 61 Independent Expert Review July 28, 2015 International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review Opportunities Cut and Cover Tunnel option with re-aligned Taxi Lane may be explored for cost and schedule savings. However Total # of gate closure during construction need to be studied for Operational Impacts. Close vicinity of Primary and Secondary processing is good for "Baggage first" option. The same could be explored for other options to optimize CBP staffing. Way-finding and well defined Branding/Signage Plan will reduce the stress of long international travel and enhance the Sense of Place for Passengers. SeattleTacoma International Airport 62 Independent Expert Review July 28, 2015 International Arrivals Facility Program : Independent Review Airport of the Future Real time data sharing / connectivity begins at a traveler's home or office Technological innovations and changes in Social Behavior can be incorporated to improve Operational efficiencies and enhance Customer Service. SeattleTacoma International Airport 63 Independent Expert Review July 28, 2015 Peer review of the International Arrivals Facility (IAF) prepared for the July 28, 2015 Mike Doucette Deputy Executive Director at Los Angeles World Airports 30 years of experience at over 50 airports worldwide Registered Architect in the State of California Former Head of Planning for Los Angeles World Airports Previously employed by two major airport planning firms Landrum & Brown TCI (Thompson Consultants International) Work at Los Angeles includes: Oversight of Design and construction of new Tom Bradley International Terminal Development of Airport Master Plan Various Individual Terminal Expansion Programs Experience with over half a dozen international arrivals facilities, such as: Vancouver, BC Chicago O'Hare LAX Melbourne Aus. Austin Texas Phoenix Sky Harbor Munich JFK Seattle July 28, 2015 Peer review of the IAF prepared for the LAX International Airport 18 gates 9 A380 Group 6 6 B777 - Group 5 3 B737 Group 3 1.3 M square feet 1.7 Billion dollars 4500 PAX per hour International Arrival Capacity July 28, 2015 Peer review of the IAF prepared for the Melbourne International Airport Phase 1 - 5 new Group 5 & 6 Gate Positions Increased Outbound Pax Processing Phase 2 6 additional Group 5 & 6 gate positions New Concessions Core Inbound Arrivals Improvements July 28, 2015 Peer review of the IAF prepared for the Vancouver International Airport Planning and Programming work including development of Basis of Design Document 15 New Group 5 Gate Positions New International Arrivals & Departures Facilities US pre-clearance facilities New Concessions Core July 28, 2015 Peer review of the IAF prepared for the Sea-Tac IAF Macro Development Issues Expand existing South Satellite versus Landside IAF Passenger connection to Landside - Bridge - Tunnel - Busing International Arrivals Activity and the Potential Impact of Pre-clearance ? Role of Technology in Processing Arriving Passengers Bag First Processing and the role of BIWIS (Baggage Image and Weight Identification) July 28, 2015 Peer review of the IAF prepared for the Sea-Tac IAF Macro Development Issues Expand existing South Satellite versus Landside IAF Passenger connection to Landside - Bridge - Tunnel - Busing International Arrivals Activity and the Potential Impact of Pre-clearance? Role of Technology in Processing Arriving Passengers Bag First Processing and the role of BIWIS July 28, 2015 Peer review of the IAF prepared for the Sea-Tac IAF Macro Development Issues Expand existing South Satellite versus Landside IAF Passenger connection to Landside - Bridge - Tunnel - Busing International Arrivals Activity and the Potential Impact of Pre-clearance ? Role of Technology in Processing Arriving Passengers Bag First Processing and the role of BIWIS July 28, 2015 Peer review of the IAF prepared for the Sea-Tac IAF Macro Development Issues Expand existing South Satellite versus Landside IAF Passenger connection to Landside - Bridge - Tunnel - Busing International Arrivals Activity and the Potential Impact of Pre-clearance ? Role of Technology in Processing Arriving Passengers "I will not have pre-clearance in Doha and Bag First Processing and the role of BIWIS from what I know, Dubai will not have that," Akbar Al Baker*said, speaking at a press conference at Arabian Travel Market. *Qatar Airways' CEO Akbar Al Baker May 10, 2015 July 28, 2015 Peer review of the IAF prepared for the Sea-Tac IAF Macro Development Issues Expand existing South Satellite versus Landside IAF Passenger connection to Landside - Bridge - Tunnel - Busing International Arrivals Activity and the Potential Impact of Pre-clearance Role of Technology in Processing Arriving Passengers Bag First Processing and the role of BIWIS July 28, 2015 Peer review of the IAF prepared for the Sea-Tac IAF Macro Development Issues Expand existing South Satellite versus Landside IAF Passenger connection to Landside - Bridge - Tunnel - Busing International Arrivals Activity and the Potential Impact of Pre-clearance ? Role of Technology in Processing Arriving Passengers Bag First Processing and the role of BIWIS (Baggage Image and Weight Identification) "Let checked bags stay checked" r July 28, 2015 Peer review of the IAF prepared for the Sea-Tac IAF Specific Planning Issues Construct or Provide Provisions for future Airfield Bus interface to CBP July 28, 2015 Peer review of the IAF prepared for the Sea-Tac IAF Specific Planning Issues The post baggage claim process (i.e. immigration review, secondary customs- APHIS. Baggage and Passenger Recheck) are confined to a relatively narrow area which could become a congestion point and capacity bottleneck July 28, 2015 Peer review of the IAF prepared for the Sea-Tac IAF Peer Review Conclusions Observations Planning Work completed to date has been well thought out and very comprehensive. With confidence in the Passenger Forecast/cost affordability the development of the new IAF will provide a tremendous improvement in the passenger/employee/stakeholder experience at Sea-Tac. Recommendations Cost Benefit Analysis to alternative Cut and Cover Tunnel phasing approach as a possible Value Engineering fallback. Incorporate Airfield Bus Access for future flexibility. Incorporate current future technology to the extent possible. Consider Bag First / BIWIS approach to streamline arrivals experience. Continue to refine physical layout and try to reach consensus of major functional layouts prior to engaging design build team. July 28, 2015 Peer review of the IAF prepared for the Design-Build Contractor and Validation Process David Brush IAF Program Leader 78 IAF Design-Build Contractor Introduce Lou Palandrani Senior Vice President Clark Construction, Team Leader, 20 years design-build experience June 24 - Clark/SOM selected from among six nationally known design-build firms July 20 Contract negotiations concluded & contract executed July 21 - Port and design-builder staff began co- locating to the SeaTac Office Center Clark/SOM, extremely high caliber firm, is working 79 IAF Design-Build Validation Work Conduct a comprehensive assessment of all existing conditions: Confirm utility locations Undertake geotechnical survey and borings Conduct surveys and site investigations Laser scan existing structures Systems assessments (Mechanical, Electrical, IT, etc.) Validation work comprehensively assesses all existing conditions 80 IAF Design-Build Validation Work Evolve various work plans: Design-Build Team Implementation Plan Building Information Management (BIM) Plan Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan Safety & Security Plans Construction Staging Plan Construction Phasing Plan Review and validate Project Definition Document planning concepts & requirements Validation involves creating many vital plans 81 IAF Design-Build Validation Work Incorporate feedback/decisions from the Commission's 90 day review period Actively engage stakeholders, especially the airlines, CBP & TSA, throughout Validation Develop design concepts options based on the current program with various passenger flows and square footage to improve passenger processing times, reduce costs and speed construction Validation checks, and improves upon, earlier programming 82 IAF Design-Build Validation Work Advance the Port-selected concept to Early Schematic Design level Key Validation Period Deliverables: Refined IAF concept that incorporates stakeholder input and satisfies the Airport's project goals and objectives Target Budget Target Schedule Validation concludes in late November 2015 Results and deliverables will be available in November 83 Customs & Border Protection; Technology at Federal Inspection Service Facilities David Brush IAF Program Leader 84 CBP Collaboration with IAF Dan Tanciar Director, Travel & Tourism Initiatives, Office of Field Operations Mark Wilkerson Seattle Area Port Director Jeff Holmgren TSA Federal Security Director for State of Washington The Airport (SEA) has a close working relationship with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) addressing overcapacity and congestion issues in existing South Satellite FIS Staff has engaged in monthly meetings with CBP staff since 2012 to discuss the SEA IAF Airport Director engaged Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner of CBP for joint effort to ensure creation of the most modern processing IAF possible IAF work includes continuing collaboration with CBP 85 CBP Collaboration with IAF CBP will have a representative assigned to the IAF and will have an office with the IAF team at the SeaTac Office Center CBP & POS are working together to design a "Flagship" IAF New Passenger Processing Methods under consideration: Automated Primary Baggage First Layout Modified Egress CBP & POS are working together to design a "Flagship" IAF 86 CBP Ingenuity and Delivery New Technology Vision All passengers process through automated kiosks or mobile devices Dynamic wayfinding signs Mobile inspections Biometrics New Project Delivery Method IAF to be first international facility delivered using Progressive Design Build CBP will employ new technology to help increase passenger throughput 87 Preclearance An Overview Preclearance takes place outside the USA Passengers are screened on foreign soil, allowing DHS to determine (ahead of time) who can come into the USA with reduced risk Involves the same immigration, customs and agriculture inspections of international air passengers performed upon arrival in the USA Currently exists at 15 foreign airports in six different countries (Canada, Caribbean, Ireland, and UAE) Preclearance allows passengers to be screened out side of the USA 88 Preclearance An Overview Requirements for operating in host countries are: DHS entering negotiations with ten airports in nine countries for new pre-clearance facilities Host countries and airports fund new CBP/TSA facilities and majority of CBP/TSA staff costs and expenses Budget or security events in either country could cause Preclearance agreements to change Preclearance will take significant time to implement 89 SEA Preclearance Implications London (LHR), Narita (NRT), Amsterdam (AMS) Existing service from LHR, NRT and AMS includes 18% of daily flights into the FIS during noon peak Schedule for expanded pre-clearance LHR 2-4 years (scalable operations) AMS and NRT could be 3-5 years, or longer depending upon agreements, budgets, and construction in those busy airports. Preclearance could somewhat lower crowding at SEA 90 SEA Gate Overview 2015 11 wide-body int'l gates now, 12 by year end All 11 gates in simultaneous use during peak 15 aircraft use int'l gates during 3 hour peak 2020 18 wide-body int'l gates at completion of IAF 16 gates in simultaneous use during peak 22 wide-body aircraft use int'l gates during 3 hour peak (includes 2 anticipated new services, 2 domestic aircraft, and 4 potential preclearance aircraft) The Commissions' Century Agenda goal envisions 6 added int'l new services after 2020 The shortage of wide-body gates available at peak will continue to grow 91 SEA Passenger Overview Passenger (PAX) volume has greatly outgrown the existing 11 gate facility. PAX "holds" are increasing on both aircraft and in corridors. In 1970 the FIS was designed to process 800 passengers per hour Today's peak hour demand on the FIS is 1,600 passengers. The current FIS facility does not have capacity for the passenger volume 92 Preclearance Gate and PAX Summary Preclearance does not eliminate the need for added IAF wide-body gates at SEA during peaks Preclearance would slightly improve today's operation, but does not eliminate the need for expanded IAF international passenger processing capability in SEA. The airport will grow and the IAF is a facility to handle growth for the next 4 to 5 decades. Preclearance does not eliminate the need for a new IAF 93 Airline Involvement in Project The Port continues to involve the airlines, including the Commission's 90 day review The airport has retained two individuals as "Airline Technical Representatives" who: Will communicate with the airlines as intermediaries throughout the Validation period Consolidate airline input and provide to the IAF team Communicate IAF team progress to the airlines This will continue beyond the 90 day period and run to November when the IAF team returns to Commission with the results of Validation Airline involvement will continue past the 90 day review 94 Forum Wrap-up and Next Meetings Technical discussions on July 29 Airline Roundtable on August 11 An ongoing effort 95
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.