Airport Infrastructure Expansion PROJECT DEFINITION DOCUMENT SUMMARY

Transcription

1 The Corporation of the City of Kingston Airport Infrastructure Expansion PROJECT DEFINITION DOCUMENT SUMMARY D July 4, R1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION STAKEHOLDER AND COMMUNITY CONSULATION RUNWAY EXTENSION Introduction Stakeholder Consultation Civil Scope Runway Taxiway Runway Graded Area Runway End Safety Areas Geotechnical Investigations Proposed Pavement Structure Electrical Scope Runway and Taxiway Edge Lights Illuminated Guidance Signs Approach Lights - Runway Approach Lights - Runway Main Electrical Room (FEC) Environmental Requirements Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Environmental Management and Protection Plan (EMPP) Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) Assessment TERMINAL EXPANSION Introduction Passenger Level of Service Area Analysis Future Expansion Stakeholder Consultation Airport and City Staff Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) i

3 4.4.3 Air Canada Jazz Porter Airlines (Porter) Expansion Highlights Code Requirements Accessibility Signage Floor Finishes Wall Finishes Ceiling Finishes Feature Walls Elevator Washrooms Roofing Exterior Windows Inbound Baggage Carousel Outbound Baggage CATSA Screening Equipment Mechanical Systems Electrical Upgrades ATB Site Works Geotechnical Investigations COST ESTIMATES APPENDICES APPENDIX A ATB Elevations and Rendering ii

4 1.0 INTRODUCTION In response to the 2011 Business Case for Expansion, Kingston City Council requested city staff to further develop the expansion options for a proposed terminal expansion and extension of Kingston Airport s Runway to 1,829 m (6000 ft.) in length. In anticipation of a design-build RFP, a Project Definition Document (PDD) defining the design and construction requirements for the proposed expansion was also prepared. This document summarizes the process through which the runway extension and Air Terminal Building (ATB) expansion concepts were developed. It includes: Identification of expansion requirements Stakeholder consultations Public input Summary of proposed concepts and key components of the PDD The concept design and PDD were prepared by: MMM Group Limited Colbourne & Kembel, Architects Inc. OTS Engineering Ltd. Kirkland Engineering Ltd. 2.0 STAKEHOLDER AND COMMUNITY CONSULATION Following the start of the project in late 2012, the project team consulted with various stakeholders, including airport and city staff, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, several airlines, Nav Canada, and Transport Canada. This initial input, combined with a review of the Master Plan 2007, Business Plan 2011, and the Project Implementation Plan 2012, was used to develop the initial runway extension and terminal expansion concepts. Further detail regarding stakeholder input is provided in the following sections of this report. On Monday February 25, 2013, a public meeting was held at 7:00 PM at the RCAF hall located at the airport to present the runway extension and terminal expansion concepts as developed to that point in time. The intent was to inform the community of the proposed project, and to solicit public feedback for incorporation into the PDD as appropriate. Attended by approximately 140 people, the meeting included City of Kingston s senior staff and local politicians. The project team was available for informal discussion and input from the community both prior to, and following, the formal part of the meeting. The formal part of the meeting included a slide presentation given by the project team that included a question 1

5 and answer session. The predominant public concern related to the issue of future noise impacts associated with the proposed runway extension and the future growth of the airport. Following the meeting, considerable effort went into refining the noise model in order to more accurately reflect 2012 noise levels and prediction of future noise levels. This updated assessment is provided in Section 3.7 of this report. The slides presented at the meeting were available on the City of Kingston web site following the meeting. Given public interest in the project, a subsequent Town Hall meeting was hosted by Councillor Dorothy Hector. At the meeting some 35 people were presented with the revised noise forecasts that included 2012 actuals and 2026 average day and peak day noise contours. A revised runway concept showing the replacement of the existing approach lighting system with new equipment restricted to airport property was also shown. The presentation was added to the City of Kingston web site following the meeting. Input from all sources, including stakeholder input and community consultation, was then used to finalize the proposed expansion concepts. These are described below. 3.0 RUNWAY EXTENSION 3.1 Introduction This portion of the project involved the development of the runway extension concept to bring the total length of Runway to 6,000 feet. The concept, as developed, is included in this document as Drawing CE Stakeholder Consultation The following stakeholders were consulted with as part of the process: Nav Canada Transport Canada Porter Airlines Air Canada Jazz Key requirements established through these meetings and discussions have been incorporated into the concept design and PDD. A summary of key requirements is summarized below: Nav Canada i. The new Runway 01 end will be setback 155 m from the existing threshold in order to ensure that the existing localizer is kept out of the runway end safety area (RESA). ii. Jet blast on the existing localizer must not exceed 160 kmph. 2

6 Transport Canada i. SSALR approach lighting is required in order to lower the Decision Altitude of 250 ft. to 200 ft. and minimum visibility from 1 mile to ½ mile. ii. The trees on the approach to Runway 01 need to be cut in order to remove obstructions penetrating the approach surface and the NOTAM related to the temporary displacement. iii. The current edition of TP312 will require the existing ditches along the existing portion of the runway to be relocated in order to meet the grading requirements of a Precision Code 4C Runway. This requirement is also responsible for a substantial volume of fill in the northerly runway extension. This requirement may be relaxed in the new edition of TP312. Porter Airlines (Porter) i. Porter noted that their current fleet of Q400 type aircraft is equipped to fly RNAV-type approaches using GPS equipment to ILS like minimums. This is of interest, as Nav Canada is currently developing this type of approach at Kingston Airport. Air Canada Jazz i. Air Canada Jazz did not voice any concerns about airside operations. 3.3 Civil Scope The civil works associated with the proposed runway extension are summarized below. Further detail is provided on Drawing CE Runway In order to accommodate larger and faster aircraft on Runway 01-19, it is proposed that the existing m (4922 ft.) runway be extended to a total length of 1829 m (6000 ft.). Recognizing that the existing approach surfaces have Transport Canada zoning enforceable through the Federal Aeronautics Act (1985), the existing runway thresholds will be maintained, thus resulting in displaced thresholds on both ends while preserving the location of the existing glide path for Runway 19. Nav Canada has indicated that the threshold of Runway 01 shall be located a minimum of 155 m from the localizer antennae. As deep fills (4 m to 5 m in depth) are anticipated for the northerly extension of the runway, maximizing the extension of the runway to the south will minimize the overall cost of the runway extension. A turn-around will be provided at the north end of Runway 01, and shall be sized in order to accommodate the turning movements of a B type aircraft. 3

7

8 3.3.2 Taxiway A connecting Code C taxiway shall be designed in order to provide access from the main apron to the threshold of Runway 01. Taxiway geometry shall accommodate a B type aircraft. As an option, design-build proponents will be asked to provide the potential cost savings to the project for the design and construction of a turn-around that would accommodate a B type aircraft Runway Graded Area The existing ditches along Runway are currently set at Non-Precision Code 3C setback requirements. In order to comply with Precision Code 4C requirements, proponents shall relocate the existing ditches Runway End Safety Areas Runway end safety areas will be provided at each end of the extended runway with a length of 90 m and a minimum width of 60 m. This proposed safety feature will provide a gently graded area at each end of the runway for aircraft in the event that they over-run or undershoot the runway. It is anticipated that this recommendation of TP312E will become a requirement in the next edition of TP312. Including this requirement as part of the proposed construction works will not only contribute to improved airport safety, but will take advantage of the economies of scale associated with the proposed expansion project Geotechnical Investigations Geotechnical sub-surface investigations were undertaken by Houle Chevrier Engineering in conjunction with the proposed airport expansion. These investigations included a total of 15 boreholes, of which 11 were undertaken specifically for the runway extension, while the remaining four were advanced for the proposed terminal expansion. A report was then prepared providing sub-surface information including soil classification, inferred bedrock locations and ground water levels. Although bedrock was encountered along the runway alignment, it was located at the north end of the runway in areas designated for fill. The geotechnical report will be provided to bidders as part of the proposed design-build RFP Proposed Pavement Structure The existing runway is currently designated as PLR 7, which means that it can accommodate CRJ 700, Embraer 170, and Bombardier Q400-type aircraft. The proposed runway extension will be designed to provide the same load carry capacity as the existing runway, as recommended by the 2011 Business Case prepared by LPS Aviation. 3.4 Electrical Scope The requirements for the various electrical works associated with the runway extension are summarized below. 5

9 See Drawing CE-100 for further detail Runway and Taxiway Edge Lights New runway and taxiway edge lights will be provided to support the extension of Runway and the proposed new turn pad. The design-build integrated team (DBIT) will be responsible for replacing any existing constant current regulator s (CCR s) with higher-capacity units if required to support the new loads Illuminated Guidance Signs New illuminated guidance signs, those needed to be relocated or replaced shall be provided to accommodate the new taxiway. New signs shall be LED-type in order to minimize electrical loads on the system Approach Lights - Runway 01 The approach to this runway is designated as a non-precision approach. Based on discussions with Transport Canada, replacement of this system is not required in order to maintain the current approach minimums for this runway. Rather than replace this aged system in conjunction with construction activities, it will be removed Approach Lights - Runway 19 The existing low-intensity approach light system shall be dismantled and replaced with a new low-intensity approach light system. The new approach lighting system shall be confined to airport property. The DBIT shall also design and install all necessary base cans within the displaced portion of the runway for a future SSALR Category I approach light system Main Electrical Room (FEC) The DBIT shall review the electrical installation along the east wall of the FEC, where the CCR s are installed, and shall make a list of deficiencies. A separate price to correct each individual deficiency shall be provided. The DBIT shall produce a new single-line diagram identifying all AGL and electrical distribution components fed from the FEC. This diagram shall be framed and posted on a wall within the FEC. An electronic copy will be made available to Nav Canada and the airport. 3.5 Environmental Requirements Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) An EIS is required to identify, evaluate, and mitigate all adverse ecological and social effects of the project, as a precursor to, and input to, the engineering design process. The current project involves northerly and southerly extensions of the airport s main runway. The northern linear 6

10 extension would include vegetation clearing and placement of fill (up to 5 m in depth) for a distance of approximately 380 m. The construction footprint would occur within an area that, although subject to vegetation management by airport staff, appears to be wetland. As well, a small watercourse in the area proposed for filling will require further study. With respect to the southern runway extension and connecting taxiway, minor cuts and fills are anticipated over an area of regularly manicured grass. Based on current knowledge, the following would be envisaged as a minimum: i. Consultation with potential agencies such as the Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada Navigable Waters Branch, and Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, to identify potential study and approval needs. ii. Ecological field studies primarily for the northerly extension including: a. Stream/watercourse evaluation (April or May) along with incidental amphibian observations b. A vegetation survey oriented towards species-at-risk (June) c. A breeding bird survey (June). Any and all environmental approvals/permits must be secured prior to construction Environmental Management and Protection Plan (EMPP) An EMPP is required to guide the construction phase of the project. The intent of the EMPP is as follows: To identify all relevant construction operations and provide mitigation and best management practices for protection of the ecological and social environments To provide general environmental protection policies to the selected contractors To identify the parties involved in all construction operations, and the responsibilities of each To describe environmental monitoring functions such as site inspections, timing, and reporting To define emergency procedures for events such as unexpected spills and cleanup procedures To provide an agency and project personnel contact list. 3.6 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) Assessment Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) Contour Plans have been developed for the proposed Runway extension at Kingston Airport. These NEF Contour Plans have been prepared for both the Peak Planning Day and the Average Day under existing (2012) conditions, 2026 conditions with no changes to existing runway, and 2026 conditions with an extended Runway 01/19. The NEF contours were developed using the FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM 7.0). This program determines the noise levels around the airport based on each aircraft type operating at the airport on each flight path, and sums these values for all aircraft types and flight paths. The 7

11 results are presented as a noise contour map. Itinerant aircraft movements for 2012 were provided by the city for various classes of aircraft. The 2026 movements for itinerant aircraft were established by taking the growth rates established in the Business Case for Expansion, Kingston Airport, December 2011, and applying them to the 2012 flight volumes. The 2026 local flight volumes were established similarly. In order to establish aircraft movements in each direction on the runway at peak hour, runway usage data and peaking factors established in the 2006 Master Plan were applied to the various classes of aircraft. The data was input into the INM model along with the runway Cartesian co-ordinates and the flight path arrival and departure profiles. These flight path profiles were obtained from the current departure and arrival flight paths for Kingston Airport. The resultant NEF contours were produced for Kingston Airport for the following scenarios under both the Average Day and the Peak Planning Day: 2012 existing; 2026 projected without Runway extension; and 2026 projected with Runway extension. Drawing NC-1 illustrates the contours for the average day, while Drawing NC-2 illustrates the contours for the Peak Planning Day. The contour plans show the NEF 30 contour for all three scenarios for both planning days. The NEF 30 contour was selected, since this delineates the zone where housing is not allowed due to the potential for noise impacts from airport operations. The NEF 30 contour is approximately equivalent to an average 24-hour sound level of 61 dba, which is representative of the sound levels associated with a two-lane minor arterial road (25 m away) or a rail line with about seven trains per day (40 m away). As seen in Drawings NC-1 and NC-2, the NEF 30 contour lines under all three scenarios and both planning days remain well within the airport lands, and are in close proximity to Runway The extension of Runway results in the NEF 30 contour extending approximately 100 m to the north and south, when compared to the contours for the existing runway. However, there is no movement of the noise contour to the east or west under the runway extension scenario. With the extended runway, the sensitivity of the NEF 30 contour was modeled by incorporating an additional eight movements (four landings and four take-offs) by aircraft. This sensitivity analysis demonstrated minimal shift to the NEF contour, which remained well within the runway environment. Accordingly, based on the results of the NEF analysis, it can be concluded that the proposed extension of Runway will not have any noise impact on nearby noise-sensitive stakeholders situated around Kingston Airport. 8

12

13

14 4.0 TERMINAL EXPANSION 4.1 Introduction This portion of the project involves the renovation and expansion of the existing air terminal building (ATB) at Kingston Airport. Renovations and additions are required to expand the service capacity of the building to meet Level of Service C requirements for 70 passengers at peak hour, based on the requirements established in the 2011 Business Case for Expansion. This will allow the airport to accommodate larger Q400-type airplane service to the City of Kingston. The concept plan as developed by the project team is included on Drawings 300 and 301. Various elevations, including a rendering of the expansion, are included in Appendix A. 4.2 Passenger Level of Service Area Analysis In order to establish the footprint for ATB expansion, a passenger space analysis was completed based on International Air Transport Association (IATA) 9th Edition, Level of Service C recommendations, and the requirement for a 70-passenger throughput at peak hour. The IATA s best practice design principles are presented in Table 1. The concept plan developed by the project design team achieves minimum Level of Service C areas utilizing existing reconfigured airport space (i.e. the inbound baggage claim area, the meeters and greeters area, the prescreening passenger queue, and passenger security screening area), and new area requirements (i.e. check-in queue area and outbound sterile hold room) to achieve the minimum airport capacity set by the City of Kingston. Design-build teams submitting are to design to the minimum of Level of Service C for 70 passengers. Several queuing options based on IATA recommendations were developed as part of the preliminary project phase. The preference was for the queue for the pre-board screening area to be located in a space separate from the main east/west public concourse. This proposed circulation is to be maintained in the designs submitted by the design-build proponents. 11

15 OWNER.\Kingston logo.jpg CONSULTANTS DISCLAIMER: PROJECT TITLE KINGSTON AIRPORT EXPANSION DRAWING TITLE GROUND FLOOR PLAN DRAWN BY: MA CHECKED BY: RHM DATE: HOR. 1:100 SCALE VERT. 1:100 CADD FILE: CONTRACT No FILE No. DRAWING No. 301 SHEET OF CONCEPTS_plan.dwg

16 OWNER.\Kingston logo.jpg CONSULTANTS DISCLAIMER: PROJECT TITLE KINGSTON AIRPORT EXPANSION DRAWING TITLE SECOND FLOOR PLAN AND ROOF PLAN DRAWN BY: MA CHECKED BY: RHM DATE: HOR. 1:100 SCALE VERT. 1:100 CADD FILE: CONTRACT No FILE No. DRAWING No. 302 SHEET OF CONCEPTS_plan.dwg

17 Table 1: Item Area IATA LofS C Req'ts 70 PAX 140 PAX 1 Check-in Queue Area 2 3 Inbound Meeters and Greeters Public Concourse Prescreening Passenger Queuing (Passport Control Few carts and 1 and 2 pieces of luggage per PAX (row width 1.2 m) = 1.3 m 2 /occupant 91 m m 2 * As per IATA calculation provided upon request 60 m m m 2 /occupant 70 m m 2 4 PAX Security Screening As per CATSA requirements 5 Outbound Sterile Hold Room(s) (80% aircraft capacity x 80% seated pax x 1.7) + (80% aircraft capacity x 20% standing pax x 1.2) 89.6 m m 2 6 Inbound Baggage Claim 1.7 m 2 /occupant 119 m m Future Expansion While the proposed ATB expansion will accommodate an immediate requirement for 70 passengers at peak hour, design-build proponents are to incorporate the potential for future expansion in the check-in queue area, inbound meeters and greeters public concourse, in-bound baggage claim, pre-board screening area, and hold room facilities. A future expansion plan is to be included as part of the submission. 4.4 Stakeholder Consultation Consultation with various stakeholders was undertaken in order to establish any deficiencies with the current ATB, and any requirements for future expansion based on the 70-passenger throughput criteria at peak hour Airport and City Staff An initial meeting was held with airport and City of Kingston staff on December 6, 2012, in order to establish their requirements for the proposed runway and terminal expansions. These comments and requirements have been incorporated into the final PDD, as appropriate Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) Hold Bag Screening (HBS) Hold bag screening is currently undertaken through a Side of House (SOH)-type operation where passengers bring their checked luggage following check-in. Luggage is placed on an inclined conveyor that introduces the bag to the x-ray machine. Cleared luggage is then directed to a conveyor that transports the cleared bag to the bag room, where it is placed on a baggage cart. If further resolution is required, screening staff on the out-feed side of the x-ray will search the bag in front of the passenger before clearing the bag and directing it onto the baggage take-away belt. 14

18 Pre-Board Screening Operations (PBS) Passengers that do not have checked luggage can proceed directly to the PBS screening area as soon as it is opened prior to the flight. Passengers that have checked luggage must first proceed through the hold bag screening (HBS) area prior to entering the PBS area. The PBS screening process requires both passengers and their carry-on luggage to be screened prior to boarding the flight. Carry-on luggage is screened through the x-ray machine and with a smaller EDT machine and wand in combination with an open-bag search. Passenger screening is accomplished by a walk-through metal detector and a hand-held wand. Passengers who do not wish to be screened with this equipment may elect to be searched in the private search room. A formal conference call and follow-up discussions were held with CATSA staff in order to solicit their input relating to their current operations at the airport as well as their future needs and requirements. Input from CATSA included the following: Although new screening equipment has not been assigned to Kingston Airport, the most probable equipment upgrades in the future would include a 7555 ATIX x-ray for HBS and a 6040 ATIX for PBS. Both of these x- ray machines provide enhanced screening capabilities and enhanced throughput. Upgrade to the ATIX type machines will decrease the random search requirement due to the improved technology. Although the option of Back-of-House-type screening was discussed, the additional space requirements, equipment required, and maintenance costs were deemed excessive for the expected throughput at the airport in the foreseeable future. CATSA indicated that the length of the existing PBS lane would need to be lengthened to a minimum length of 10.8 m in order to accommodate a 6040 ATIX machine in the future Air Canada Jazz A meeting was held with representatives from Air Canada Jazz on December 2, 2012 to seek input relating to their current operations at the airport as well as their future needs and requirements. It was indicated that the city s immediate goal was to ensure that the terminal building had sufficient capacity to accommodate a 70-seat turbo prop such as a Q400. Air Canada Jazz s input is summarized as follows: AC Jazz is satisfied with the existing SOH type screening operation. Conveyors behind counters require lifting of bags, which is not desirable from a health and safety perspective. Conveyors between counters can be unsafe if agents are forced to step on them. AC Jazz indicated that a single cargo counter and a two-position ticket counter would be adequate to accommodate a 70-seat aircraft-type operation. A new public address system is required in order to accept and play pre-recorded messages in french; these 15

19 messages would be provided in an MP3 format. Space currently leased at the airport is adequate to support a 70-seat aircraft operation. The existing passenger hold room is inadequate for a 70-seat airplane. Concerns with the capacity of the existing PBS operation were expressed Porter Airlines (Porter) Porter currently runs their operations exclusively with Q400-type aircraft from their base at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. As their operation serves a number of smaller communities, a teleconference was held with Porter representatives on January 24, 2013 in order to understand their requirements. A summary of Porter s requirements for a Q400 type operation is provided below. If Porter s service comes to a new airport, it typically uses the counter space that is provided to them. Porter prefers to have its own dedicated check-in counters. Porter requires two check-in positions to handle a Q400 flight. Porter encourages on-line check-in. One position handles passengers with boarding passes and bags, and the other position handles both. Porter does not handle cargo. Passenger boarding bridges are not required. Timmins Victor Powell Airport and Sudbury Airport use Airstair. Porter prefers a power-in and power-out operation. Porter uses CUTE kiosks at Ottawa International Airport and Montreal-Trudeau Airport. A lot of people get their boarding pass on-line, so kiosks are becoming less of a requirement Expansion Highlights Based on input from the public information session on February 25, 2013, and from various stakeholders, the PTB expansion concept was further developed. The proposed expansion, as outlined in the Project Definition Document, is summarized below. The proposed concept was prepared on the basis of meeting IATA Level of Service C recommendations based on a 70 passenger throughput requirement at peak hour. Several queuing options based on IATA recommendations were developed as part of the preliminary project phase. The preference was for the queue for the pre-board screening area to be located in a space separate from the main east/west public concourse. This proposed circulation is to be maintained in the designs submitted by the design-build teams. Based on these spatial requirements, as well as those of the various PTB tenants and stakeholders, a 375 m 2 expansion concept was developed by the project team. 16

20 4.5.1 Code Requirements The new addition is to be designed and constructed in accordance with Ontario Building Code 2006 (OBC) or current edition at the time of design-build submissions. Based on the concept sketches, the air terminal building will be required to have sprinklers installed throughout the existing and new portion of the building. The existing terminal building does not currently have a sprinkler system. The existing second floor is to have the required mechanical upgrades, with only minimal architectural revisions required to accommodate these renovations. The new air terminal building addition will be designed to meet the requirements of Supplementary Standard SB- 10 Energy Efficiency Supplement. The design-build team is to select a method suitable to their proposed design that meets the requirements of this supplement (SB-10), either through prescriptive methods, or through the method requiring energy modeling Accessibility The building is to be designed to meet the City of Kingston s Facility Accessibility Design Standards (FADS) in addition to the OBC barrier-free requirements. The concept has incorporated requirements into the layout and space analysis to accommodate sufficient clearances. A family change room with change table is to be included in both the hold room (secure zone) area as well as in the public area. The existing public washrooms, rooms 109 and 112, are to be considered to already be compliant with the barrierfree standards. To improve the accessibility and function of these washrooms, collapsible coat hooks are to be incorporated in all washroom stalls and adjacent to the lavatories. A new elevator is to be incorporated into the proposed building renovation. Space is to be allocated and a shaft built for the new elevator to the second floor. The interior cab dimensions of the elevator are to meet the FAD guidelines of 1,525 mm x 1,725 mm. The successful team s design will require an accessibility review for compliance during the design, construction documents, and contracts and administration phases of the project Signage Both interior and exterior way-finding, regulatory, and exterior ID signage will be required. Exterior ID signage shall denote Kingston Airport on the exterior of the building, and shall incorporate the airport s logo on both the south and north elevations of the building and canopy Floor Finishes New flooring finish is to be provided throughout the main floor. Flooring finish is to tie the addition and the renovated portions of the terminal building together, presenting an attractive finish. The floor finish plan is to be 17

21 included with the submission, and will be evaluated on architectural interest, material selections quality, and merit Wall Finishes The entire main floor existing building interior walls, gypsum board ceilings, and bulkheads are to be repainted as part of this project. Existing mechanical and electrical service rooms are excluded from this requirement, except when cutting and patching occurs within these rooms. The existing second floor is not to be repainted except for areas where cutting and patching occurs, and for rooms noted as requiring finishing in the room data sheets for the second floor Ceiling Finishes As the existing ceiling tile and grid will need to be removed to permit the installation of the new sprinkler system, the installation and provision of new ceiling tile and grid throughout the existing building is required Feature Walls As part of the renovations and additions to the terminal building, the incorporation of feature walls shall express and promote the City of Kingston. Possible locations of feature walls are noted on the concept plans. Ideas for these walls include, but are not limited to, the use of water features, projected images of the Kingston area, green/living walls, and commissioned art work. These feature walls should further enhance the architectural vision of the building and the City of Kingston Elevator A new elevator will be installed to meet OBC requirements and sized to meet the City of Kingston s FADS. The elevator is to be a machine room-less electric traction passenger elevator Washrooms Male and female washrooms will be provided in the secure hold room. As previously indicated, a family change room with change table is to be included in both the hold room (secure zone) area as well as the public area. The existing public washrooms, rooms 109 and 112, are considered to be compliant with the barrier-free standards, and will be improved by adding collapsible coat hooks in all stalls and adjacent to the lavatories Roofing An existing solar array is located on the roof of the ATB. The portion of the roof where the solar array is installed was roofed in 2011, and is to remain. The remainder of the existing roof is to be re-roofed as part of this project. All mechanical units located on the roof are to be screened with an architectural screening product to conceal the unit s appearance while permitting sufficient access to the unit. 18

22 Exterior Windows New exterior windows are to be provided to replace the existing windows, in addition to the new windows for the addition. A combination of punched and curtain wall windows are incorporated into the overall expansion concept including the existing building windows to be replaced. Proponents are to provide a separate credit for the cost savings associated with not replacing the existing windows Inbound Baggage Carousel In order to provide increased capacity for inbound baggage, the existing carousel will be extended along the north face of the terminal building Outbound Baggage In order to provide increased capacity for outbound baggage, the new bag room will be increased in size in order to accommodate two baggage carts essentially doubling the outbound baggage capacity CATSA Screening Equipment The initial expansion will be undertaken based on the reuse of CATSA s existing screening equipment which is currently located within the HBS and PBS areas of the ATB. The new space for both of these areas will be configured such that it can accommodate the anticipated upgrades to ATIX-type equipment in the future Mechanical Systems The entire building (addition and existing) shall be provided with a wet-type sprinkler system. In addition, a roof-top air-handling system shall be provided with an air-to-air heat pump system, and shall be installed in conjunction with the proposed expansion. As an option, the existing hot water boilers, expansion tanks, and heat pumps shall be priced and replaced depending on the overall impact to the budget Electrical Upgrades In order to provide for the additional electrical load from the proposed expansion, the existing 150 kva transformer and 200 Amp service will upgraded with a 300 kva transformer and 400 panel. Energy-efficient lighting shall be provided in all new and renovated areas. The lighting control system will be interconnected via network control cable to the energy management control system (EMCS). A new fire alarm system will be installed, as the existing fire alarm system is approaching the end of its useful life. 19

23 Emergency power in the event of a power outage will be provided by a new 250-KW generator to be located on the exterior of the building within an outdoor enclosure, thus freeing up space within the terminal building. As an option, proponents will be asked to provide the city with a price to upgrade the electrical entrance so that the normal power requirements and the emergency power requirements of both the terminal building and the airfield lighting system can be met. Although the option to connect the airfield lighting system to the ATB power entrance is not a requirement at this time, it may be more cost effective to upgrade the generator to accommodate the airfield lighting, since a new generator is required for the expanded terminal building ATB Site Works Proponents will be requested to prepare an aircraft gating plan and pavement markings necessary to accommodate two Q400s, assuming power-in and power-out operations. An alternate gate will also be provided to accommodate a B type aircraft in combination with a single Q400. It is anticipated that the B would need to be pushed back, since a power-out maneuver would more than likely cause excessive jet blast velocities on the terminal building. See Drawing No. CE-101 for further detail. It is anticipated that the proposed expansion of the terminal building will require re-grading of the existing pavement surfaces adjacent to the expanded portion of the terminal in order to comply with TP312 and NFPA grading requirements. In addition, an expanded pavement surface will be required on the east side of the terminal building, in order to provide sufficient space for baggage carts entering and exiting the new bag room. The existing apron flood lighting system will be upgraded in order to provide for the necessary light levels for the proposed gating plan previously discussed. It is anticipated that the three existing light poles will be replaced with two light poles, minimum 20 m in height, each having their own lowering device. A new 150 mm-diameter water service will be required in order to provide adequate flow for the new sprinkler system necessitated by the expansion. See Drawing No. CE Geotechnical Investigations As previously indicated, geotechnical sub-surface investigations were undertaken by Houle Chevrier Engineering in conjunction with the proposed airport expansion. A total of four boreholes were advanced for the proposed terminal expansion. A report was then prepared, providing sub-surface information including soil classification inferred bedrock locations and ground water levels. The geotechnical report will be provided to bidders as part of the proposed design-build RFP. 20

24 5.0 COST ESTIMATES Cost estimates have been developed to the Class C level by the project team, based on conceptual drawings and initial engineering studies undertaken for both the runway extension and terminal expansion. For the runway extension, a conceptual plan and an associated grading plan were developed in order to develop the quantity estimates necessary for the preparation of the Class C cost estimates for this portion of the project. Following the preparation of quantity take-offs, unit prices were established based on available data from a number of recent airport projects undertaken by MMM. As the major pay item for the runway extension will be for the large fill quantity to be placed at the north end of the runway, several contractors were approached in order to confirm the unit prices used for this portion of the cost estimate. It should be noted that prices for asphaltic cement continue to rise, and, as a result, these prices may be difficult to accurately predict. Given the pricing variability of asphaltic cement, as well as the availability of general fill at time of construction, a contingency of 15% has been included in the cost estimate. For the ATB, extensive work went into the development of a detailed PDD and accompanying room data sheets specifying the detailed requirements within each room. The cost estimates have been prepared in an effort to be as comprehensive as possible, and include key soft costs such as: Topographic survey of the proposed work areas Engineering and contingencies Project management Full-time supervision of the runway extension Design-build honorarium for the RFP respondents Building permit fees Development fees Impost fees and the non-refundable portion of HST Detailed exclusions for the terminal building are included in Hanscomb s May 2013 Class C cost estimate. Other excluded costs are: Replacement of ILS New FEC that would be required in order to accommodate a SSALR approach lighting system Escalation and financing The total estimated cost for the proposed project as outlined in the PDD is provided in Table 2. 21

25 As part of the costing exercise a number of options were also priced. These include: Credit to leave existing windows in place Additional cost to install a new boiler Additional cost to upsize the generator for PTB and future connection to airfield lighting system The total project budget, assuming that the existing windows are left in place and that the additional cost items are included, is $15,927,

26

27

28 TABLE 2 - KINGSTON INFRASTRUCTURE EXPANSION COST ESTIMATE - CLASS C SUMMARY Runway Extension a) Runway 19 End - Civil Works $4,838,363 b) Runway 1 End - Civil Works $1,094,073 c) Runway 19 End - Electrical $577,430 d) Runway 01 End - Electrical $251,880 Sub-Total $6,761,746 Topographic Survey $50,000 10% $676,175 15% $1,014,262 Project 2.0% $135,235 Full Time Supervision by City $225,000 Design-Build Fee for 4 firms $60,000 Non-Refundable Portion of 1.76% $119,007 Total Runway Extension $9,041,424 Option 2D Terminal Expansion Hanscomb Estimate $5,126,000 Apron Works (Pavement, light poles and power pedestals) $344,353 Building $12/$1000 $65, Development $5.46/ sq ft $22,146 Impost $7.54/ sq ft $30,582 8% $437, Designated Substances Report $7,000 Construction 7% $382, Project 2.0% $109, Design-Build Honorarium for 4 firms $60,000 Non-Refundable Portion of 1.76% $96, Total Terminal Expansion $6,681,964 Total Estimated Cost $15,723,388 Optional Items Retain Existing Windows -$176,328 Install New Boiler $133,554 Electrical Upgrade to Feed Future FEC near FSS $246,973 Total Estimated Cost with Optional Items $15,927,587 Notes: 1. HST is excluded 2. Refer to Hanscomb cost estimate dated May 8, 2013 for details and exclusions 3. Refer to ATB PDD dated April 23, 2013 for detailed design requirements and concept drawings. 4. Excludes cost for replacement of ILS. 5. Assumes replacement of existing low intensity centre row approach lights for Runway 19 and continued use of FEC within Nav Canada facility. SSALR's approach lights will require a new FEC which is excluded from this budget. 5. Excludes escalation and financing. 6. Runway extensions to meet PLR7 load rating. 1 of 1 Kingston Cost Estimate_130521A

29 Appendix A ATB Elevations and Rendering

30 OWNER.\Kingston logo.jpg CONSULTANTS DISCLAIMER: CONSULTING ARCHITECT'S CONCEPTUAL DRAWING REFER TO SECTION 1.3 OF PDD PROJECT TITLE KINGSTON AIRPORT EXPANSION DRAWING TITLE CONCEPT NORTH & WEST ELEVATIONS DRAWN BY: MA CHECKED BY: RHM CONTRACT No. FILE No DATE: DRAWING No. HOR. SCALE VERT. H.S. V.S. SHEET OF CADD FILE: PRESENTATION_Perspective_apr19.dwg

31 OWNER.\Kingston logo.jpg CONSULTANTS DISCLAIMER: CONSULTING ARCHITECT'S CONCEPTUAL DRAWING REFER TO SECTION 1.3 OF PDD PROJECT TITLE KINGSTON AIRPORT EXPANSION DRAWING TITLE CONCEPT SOUTH & EAST ELEVATIONS DRAWN BY: MA CHECKED BY: RHM CONTRACT No. FILE No DATE: DRAWING No. HOR. SCALE VERT. H.S. V.S. SHEET OF CADD FILE: PRESENTATION_Perspective_apr19.dwg

32 OWNER.\Kingston logo.jpg CONSULTANTS DISCLAIMER: CONSULTING ARCHITECT'S CONCEPTUAL DRAWING REFER TO SECTION 1.3 OF PDD PROJECT TITLE KINGSTON AIRPORT EXPANSION DRAWING TITLE CONCEPT PERSPECTIVE DRAWN BY: MA CHECKED BY: RHM CONTRACT No. FILE No DATE: DRAWING No. HOR. SCALE VERT. H.S. V.S. SHEET OF CADD FILE: PRESENTATION_Perspective_apr19.dwg

33