BNA Master Plan Update

Transcription

1 BNA Master Plan Update Community Advisory Committee Meeting No. 6 January 31, 2013

2 Introductions MNAA Staff RW Armstrong Team Albersman & Armstrong, Ltd. Atkins North America, Inc. Gresham, Smith and Partners Community Advisory Committee Members Others

3 Agenda Status of the BNA Master Plan Update Overview of Airport Development Concepts Process Recommended Airport Development Concepts Landside Development Plan Next Steps Comments/Questions

4 Status Completed Demand/Capacity Analysis & Facility Requirements Completed Working Paper No. 3 Continued Airport Landside Development Plan Preparing Draft Working Paper No. 4 Continued Airport Development Concepts Preparing Draft Working Paper No. 5 Began Airport Layout Plan (ALP) set Began Financial Analysis

5 Sustainability Study Master Plan A Six Sigma Organization The Airport Master Plan/Sustainability Study Process Aerial Survey & Mapping Pre-Planning, Study Design, Secure Funding Inventory Existing Conditions Activity & Demand Forecasting Demand/ Capacity Analysis & Facility Requirements Alternative Development Concepts Implementation Plan ALP Plan Set Final Documents Public Involvement - Study Advisory Committees Conduct Sustainability Baseline Assessment Identify Sustainability Goals & Targets Identify Sustainability Strategies Develop Implementation Plan Prepare Final Sustainability Plan July 2011 November 2011 January 2012 July 2012 September 2012 October 2012 January 2013 April 2013 Sustainability Legend Master Plan Legend = complete = in progress/to be completed = complete = in progress/to be completed = ongoing

6 Airport Development Concepts Overview Addresses necessary facility requirements that are essential to accommodate the forecast demand Used to facilitate the selection of a long-term improvement concept for the Airport Addresses: Airside Terminal/Landside General Aviation, Support, & Cargo facilities Ground Access and Parking Planning charrette with MNAA was conducted in May to contribute information to the planning process

7 Airport Development Concepts Overview cont Evaluation of alternative concepts, individually and collectively, to gain clear understanding of strengths weakness, opportunities, and threats Includes: Recommended Alternatives Preliminary Environmental Analysis Phasing and Flexibility Feasibility factors Landside Development Plan is being prepared in conjunction with Airport Development Concepts BNA Sustainability Study factors are included in evaluation of Airport Development Concepts

8 Airport Development Concepts Airfield Concept 1 Potential Airfield Expansion This concept includes an extension of 3,297 feet on the south end of Runway 2L/20R to achieve a total length of 11,000 feet

9 Airport Development Concepts Airfield Concept 1 Potential Airfield Expansion Pros Achieves desired 11,000 feet runway length. Provides closest proximity to the Air Cargo operators on the western portion of the Airport. Extension construction area is limited to one end of the runway. Cons Concept imposes the greatest impact to off-airport property users such as Johnston & Murphy, although MNAA currently owns the land required for this concept. Concept requires tunneling of 6-lane highway. Concept requires multiple road closures and residential area displacement. Provides aviation expansion areas to the west. Requires relocation of existing Navaids.

10 Airport Development Concepts Airfield Concept 2 Potential Airfield Expansion This concept includes an extension of 1,500 feet on both ends of Runway 2R/20L to achieve a total length of 11,000 feet

11 Airport Development Concepts Airfield Concept 2 Potential Airfield Expansion Pros Cons Proposed construction area is already within the confines of the Airport perimeter fence. Extended runway is the furthest runway from the air-cargo and commercial passenger aircraft aprons. Provides aviation expansion areas to the east. Operations to and from both runway ends would require displaced thresholds and declared distances for RPZ compliance. Construction is required on both ends of the runway; 2 blast pads require relocation as opposed to 1. Requires relocation of TVA transmission lines. Requires closure of Couchville Pike (longer Employee Shuttle Bus route). Requires relocation (or in-ground protection) of aircraft fuel transmission line. Requires relocation of Colonial Pipeline. Requires relocation of existing Navaids. Requires relocation of McCrory Creek (Blue Line Stream) and Detention Dam.

12 Airport Development Concepts Airfield Concept 3 Potential Airfield Expansion This concept includes an extension of 3,000 feet on the north end of Runway 2C/20C to achieve a total length of 11,000 feet

13 Airport Development Concepts Airfield Concept 3 Potential Airfield Expansion Pros Cons Proposed construction area is already within the confines of the Airport perimeter fence. Existing drainage areas would be required to be filled/re-located. Extension construction area is limited to one end of the runway. Construction requires the closure of crosswind Runway Provides closest proximity to the Airport s passenger terminal. Creates another runway-runway intersection; increases the potential of runway incursions. Requires relocation of SWTF ($14 million). Requires a displaced threshold to the approach end of Runway 20C, and a reduction in the declared Landing Distance Available (LDA) to Runway 20C. Creates situations where T1 and T2 become endaround taxiways. Places numerous items in RPZ. Minimal aviation expansion areas.

14 Airport Development Concepts Airfield Fourth Parallel Runway The fourth parallel runway is beyond the 20-year planning horizon. It is included to preserve the airspace and land envelopes

15 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development West of Runway 2L/20R Maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO)/ /Cargo Building (Group IV Aircraft) Hangar development

16 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development West of Runway 2L/20R Pros Cons Near Runway 2L/20R with connectivity to Taxiway Romeo. Site is more conducive for combined mixed uses. Nearby existing utilities. Limited expansion capabilities. Allows for phased development of area. Deicing at this location is difficult based on current pond. Nearby access to Briley Parkway. Ideal layout for MRO/Cargo development.

17 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development South of Runway 13/31 Provides space for MRO/Cargo or GA Development Depicts future expansion of Taxiway Kilo

18 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development South of Runway 13/31 Pros Cons Nearby existing utility infrastructure. Topographical constraints (i.e., extreme elevation differences). Area near Embraer facilities allows for expanded MRO and/or cargo development. Area near Runway 13 end allows for either MRO/Cargo or GA activities and connectivity to the future Taxiway Kilo extension. Nearby access to major arterial roadways. The presence of a Blue Line Stream would likely require mitigation prior to development of area. Limited expansion capability. GA aircraft would be required to taxi within proximity of large aircraft. Some of areas would require removal of vegetation and trees. Future Taxiway Kilo extension would likely be required prior to development of area near Runway 13 end.

19 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development North of Runway 13/31 (A) Provides space for MRO/Cargo Development Depicts phased development of area

20 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development North of Runway 13/31 (B) Depicts removal or relocation of VORTAC Depicts acquisition of Knights of Columbus Property

21 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development North of Runway 13/31 (A) & (B) Pros Cons Allows for phased development of area. Elevation differences throughout area. Increased expansion area. VORTAC would require relocation or removal prior to development of entire area. Nearby existing utility infrastructure. Majority of area would require removal of vegetation and trees. Adequate area for expansion capability. Nearby roadways may require improvements due to increased vehicular traffic. Area would allow isolation for large aircraft.

22 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development South of Murfreesboro Road Provides space for General Aviation Development

23 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development South of Murfreesboro Road Pros Cons Ideal layout for corporate/private hangar campus. Limited expansion capability. Nearby access to major arterial roadways. Portion of area would require removal of vegetation and trees. Nearby existing utility infrastructure. Site is excavation is mostly rock with blasting required. Area would allow isolation from larger aircraft. Height of buildings at this site are restricted by line of site and airspace surfaces.

24 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development West of Runway 2L Provides space for General Aviation Development

25 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development West of Runway 2L Pros Cons Ideal layout for corporate/private hangar campus. Limited expansion capability. Nearby existing utility infrastructure. Nearby roadways may require improvements due to increased vehicular traffic. Area would allow isolation from larger aircraft. Requires relocation of MNAA maintenance functions on the west side. Relatively even terrain.

26 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development Existing General Aviation Area Provides space for General Aviation Development

27 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development Concept 6 Existing General Aviation Area Pros Cons Ideal layout for corporate/private hangar campus. Existing Airport development would need to be removed or relocated prior to full development. Existing utility infrastructure. Potential removal of roadway/parking pavement to accommodate portion of taxiway OFA. Proximity to existing GA infrastructure. Relatively even terrain. Nearby access to major arterial roadways.

28 Airport Development Concepts On-Airport Development Air Traffic Control Tower & Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Depicts proposed relocation sites for Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) & Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF)

29 Airport Development Concepts Intl. Arrivals Building Concept 1 Potential Reuse of Concourse A This concept includes: Reuse of 19,500 sq.ft. of upper concourse Repurposing of 9,400 sq.ft. of existing MNAA space at ramp level

30 Airport Development Concepts Intl. Arrivals Building Concept 1 Potential Reuse of Existing Concourse A Pros Utilizes existing Concourse A. Maintains aircraft movement circulation and existing ramp aircraft parking for staging international flights. Utilizes ramp level space beneath concourse for additional IAB functional space. Opportunity to create dedicated curbside serving IAB facility Cons Eliminates existing MNAA Maintenance Department space at ramp level. Remote distance from main terminal amenities, such as exits, ground transportation, baggage claim, etc. Requires demolition of existing IAB, so there will not be an IAB during construction.

31 Airport Development Concepts Intl. Arrivals Building Concept 2 Potential Reuse of Concourse A This concept includes: Widening of concourse circulation and gates Provides 28,900 square feet for new International Arrivals Building (IAB)

32 Airport Development Concepts Intl. Arrivals Building Concept 2 Potential Re-use/Expansion of Existing Concourse A Pros Maintains ramp level space beneath concourse for additional MNAA or aircraft use. Cons Construction activities may impact facility operations. Opportunity to create dedicated curbside serving IAB facility Primary construction access is from airside. Existing IAB has exceeded its useful life Existing gates on Concourse A will require relocation. Closest proximity to main terminal amenities and exit from IAB meeter/greeter area, baggage claim and ground transportation

33 Airport Development Concepts Intl. Arrivals Building Concept 3 Potential Reuse/Expansion of Concourse D This concept includes: Re-use of Concourse D upper and lower levels Expansion eastwards

34 Airport Development Concepts Intl. Arrivals Building Concept 3 Potential Reuse/Expansion of Concourse D Pros Cons Existing IAB has exceeded its useful life Required separation distance and wingtip clearance cannot be met for international arrivals, therefore access at the end of C Concourse will be limited to a single lane. No ramp tower for ramp control. Existing ramp pavement east of Concourse D provides staging area for international flights. Long, inefficient building footprint may result in narrow hold rooms, impact concession opportunities and IAB functional layout Opportunities to create dedicated curbside serving IAB facility. Potential Line of Sight issue which must be investigated. Mechanical rooms would require renovation. TSA offices would require relocation.

35 Airport Development Concepts Terminal Ticket Lobby Terminal Ticket Lobby is currently under design, considering selfservice equipment at ends of airline ticket counters Concept 1 includes: Location of self-service and self bag-tagging kiosks at ends of ticket counters Focus on faster check-in processes away from agents Freestanding lobby kiosks

36 Airport Development Concepts Terminal Ticket Lobby Concept 1 Self-Service Equipment at Ticket Counter Ends Pros Cons Projected passenger needs will be addressed throughout the planning period. Modifications to existing facilities impact both facility operations and customer service. Lobby circulation efficiencies and passenger flow are improved. Increased use of self-service equipment increases efficiency and speed of check-in process. Self-service check-in proximity to Security Screening Checkpoint (SSCP).

37 Airport Development Concepts Terminal Baggage Claim PAL 4 Addition of new claim carousel and expansion of building This concept includes: Building expansion to the northeast Creates additional space for pedestrian circulation, ATO s and restrooms Additional bag claim carousel

38 Airport Development Concepts Terminal Baggage Claim PAL 4 Building Expansion and Additional Claim Device Pros Cons Adds bag claim capacity, including required circulation space around the claim device. Construction costs associated with expansion. Additional restroom capacity and provides expanded ATO space for use by the air carriers. Utilizes central escalator core for floor infill to increase circulation space. Provides needed pedestrian circulation space. Build-out can provide floor for Ticketing expansion.

39 Airport Development Concepts Baggage Make-up Phase 1 Re-use of two existing Main Terminal baggage make-up rooms No expansion of Concourse C make-up area This concept includes: Renovation of existing facilities to accommodate new entrant air carrier Replacement of existing run-out conveyors

40 Airport Development Concepts Baggage Make-up Phase 1 Re-use of Existing Main Terminal Bag Make-up Rooms Pros Cons Re-use and renovation of existing vacant baggage make-up rooms necessitated by need of existing or new entrant air carriers. Sizes of existing rooms can be a limiting factor depending on size of carrier using make-up room. Does not require build-out of new space. Maintains individual make-up rooms and operations between air carriers. Sufficient capacity through PAL 2.

41 Airport Development Concepts Baggage Make-up Phase 2 Creation of new shared make-up room No expansion of Concourse C make-up area This concept includes: Creation of new 5,000 sq. ft. shared make-up room Provides new slope plate make-up carousel with capacity to serve multiple carriers simultaneously

42 Airport Development Concepts Baggage Make-up Phase 2 Shared Make-up Room and Equipment Pros Cons With anticipated increases in use of third party ramp service providers servicing multiple carriers, shared carousel operations would not present challenge. Requires demolition of existing walls and equipment to create contiguous space for shared use. Improves circulation of tugs. Cost associated with construction of new shared sloped plate make-up carousel. Increases make-up loading capacity. Need to gain consensus with air carriers for shared use equipment. Capacity from PAL 3 through planning period. Any additional expansion outside of building.

43 Airport Development Concepts Post-Secure Concessions Concourse A Repurposing of existing hold room and office space This concept includes: Additional concession offerings adjacent to United Airline gates Repurposing of MNAA office space adjacent to gate A-1 for concessions Occurs at PAL 3

44 Airport Development Concepts Post-Secure Concessions Concourse A Concessions Development Pros Cons Utilizes existing Concourse A does not require expansion of existing facilities. Eliminates existing MNAA office space adjacent to gate A-1, currently an inactive gate. Improves concessions exposure as first offering is before all gates. Creates potential restriction for future expansion of hold room seating space. Does not reduce concourse circulation. Product delivery locations and distance. Revenue can be limited based on passenger levels.

45 Airport Development Concepts Post-Secure Concessions Concourse B Repurposing of existing hold room space and facility expansion This concept includes: Additional concession offerings adjacent to US Airways gates Expansion to building exterior Occurs at PAL 2 and 3

46 Airport Development Concepts Post-Secure Concessions Concourse B Concessions Development Pros Cons Expands concessions offerings by expanding outwards, not internally affecting concourse circulation. Requires some existing facility expansion at middle of concourse. Construction above existing airline operations can be disruptive. Provides increased offerings, keeping in pace with increased passenger activity levels. Creates potential restriction for future expansion of hold room seating space. Minimized passenger impacts at concourse. Product delivery locations and distance.

47 Airport Development Concepts Post-Secure Concessions Concourse C Repurposing of existing hold room space and limited exterior expansion This concept includes: Additional concession offerings adjacent to Southwest and AA gates Expanded existing F&B offerings do not affect concourse circulation

48 Airport Development Concepts Post-Secure Concessions Concourse C Concessions Development Pros Cons Utilizes existing Concourse C through re-purposing of hold room space or potential vacant gate space. Re-purposing of vacant gate hold room space can be restrictive to future air carrier expansion requiring gate space. Increases concessions offerings at each PAL to accommodate increased passenger activity levels. Expansion above baggage make-up areas can be disruptive to operations and increase construction costs. Does not reduce concourse circulation. Product delivery locations and distance.

49 Airport Development Concepts Post-Secure Concessions Main Terminal building expansion to capture additional concession offerings This concept includes: Building expansion to begin between PAL 2 and PAL 3. Additional re-composure space created at SSCP exit

50 Airport Development Concepts Post-Secure Concessions Main Terminal Concessions Development Pros Cons Utilizes existing Gate C-1 holdroom and office space. Construction costs for expanding existing building towards airfield. Good concession exposure immediately at SSCP exit, including views of airfield. Also creates added a SSCP exit re-composure area and improved circulation. Expansion above baggage make-up areas and active vehicle drives can be disruptive to operations and increase construction costs. Provides expanded cover over ramp area below.

51 Airport Development Concepts Pre-Secure Concessions Phase 1 Pre-Secure Concessions This concept includes: Additional concessions added adjacent to Concourse C meeter/greeter seating area PAL 2 addition of 882 sq. ft.

52 Airport Development Concepts Pre-Secure Concessions Phase 3 Pre-Secure Concessions Development Pros Cons Increased concession offerings for passengers and meeters/greeters, while creating revenue opportunities at ingress/egress points of lobby. Higher construction costs for exterior infill project, including additional costs associated with new exterior building materials vs. interior remodel. Does not reduce bag claim lobby circulation. Exterior infill roof structure can be designed to be utilized for floor above, to accommodate future ticket lobby expansion.

53 Demand/Capacity & Facility Requirements Summary cont Surface Transportation and Parking Recommendations Summary Year Enplanements ¹ On-Airport Demand ² Off-Airport Demand ³ Effective Supply ⁴ Surplus / (Deficit) ,806,092 8,699 2,211 14,428 5, ,835,700 13,247 2,211 14,428 1, ,929,300 15,730 2,211 14,428 (1,302) ,190,000 18,591 2,211 14,428 (4,163) ,658,600 21,925 2,211 14,428 (7,497) ¹ RW Armstrong; Preferred Forecast Summary, April 6, ² Based on 2.27 spaces / 1,000 enplanements. ³ 2012 Parking supply (includes on- and off-airport). ⁴ Assume off-airport parking demand remains at existing levels. Source: Albersman & Armstrong Ltd., 2012.

54 Airport Development Concepts Roadway Concept 1 Maintain Existing Infrastructure

55 Airport Development Concepts Roadway Concept 1 Maintain Existing Roadway Infrastructure; No-build. Pros Cons Achieves desired roadway capacity for current traffic volumes. Does not require State or Federal coordination or approvals. Does not involve additional funds for infrastructure. Does not address the existing roadway weaving or capacity concerns. Does not provide opportunities to expand areas available for parking. Without the expansion, the existing areas will require larger and higher cost vertical parking garages. Without providing opportunities to expand the parking areas by new road alignments, the construction of parking garages will have a greater impact on the existing parking operations.

56 Airport Development Concepts Roadway Concept 2 Relocate Donelson Pike & Terminal Drive to the east side of Long-Term Lot B and with new connections at I-40

57 Airport Development Concepts Roadway Concept 2 Donelson Pike & Ring Road Relocations. Pros Cons Achieves desired roadway capacity to accommodate future traffic growth. Improves the conflicting traffic movement issues. Improves the traffic merging issues. Concept allows opportunities to expand the surface parking adjacent to the existing parking garage. Doing so allows construction of smaller parking structures which would have less impact to current parking operations and lower overall cost. Provides greater opportunities to access airport lands east of existing Donelson Pike and Runway 20L. Dependant on the State and Federal approval and funds to construct the Interstate 40 / Donelson Pike interchange. Nominal impact to existing traffic patterns during certain construction phases. Requires utility relocations that exist along Donelson Pike (NES, Communications) and coordination with others that are scheduled to remain (Colonial Gas Line, TVA).

58 Airport Development Concepts Parking Concept 1 All new parking developed in expanded Lot A Assumes Donelson Pike realignment Total net gain: 8,000 spaces Increase surface parking in Lot A by 6,200 spaces Expand existing parking structure to the south (three levels, 2,700 spaces) Total spaces: 20,800

59 Airport Development Concepts Parking Concept 1 All new parking developed in expanded Lot A Pros Cons Simplifies parking system (combines Lots A and B). Requires realignment of Donelson Pike. Least expensive option for expanding parking (less structured parking). Substantial amount of parking outside of the Airport ring road (Economy and Valet Lots). More parking within walking distance from the terminal. Requires development of large multi-level parking structure. Maintains CONRAC throughout the planning period. Does not reduce shuttling costs. Flexibility to expand parking structure horizontally. Does not simplify parking operations or wayfinding.

60 Airport Development Concepts Parking Concept 2 All new parking inside of Airport ring road Assumes Donelson Pike realignment Total net gain: 8,400 spaces Increase surface parking in Lot A by 4,500 spaces Expand existing parking structure to the southeast (three levels, 9,500 spaces) Total spaces: 21,200

61 Airport Development Concepts Parking Concept 2 All new parking inside of Airport ring road. Pros Cons Frees up real estate for future Airport development. Requires realignment of Donelson Pike. Nearly all public parking within Airport ring road. Requires development of large multi-level parking structure. More parking within walking distance from the terminal. Maintains CONRAC throughout the planning period. Flexibility to expand parking structure horizontally. Greatly simplifies parking operations and wayfinding.

62 Airport Development Concepts Parking Concept 3 Convert CONRAC to public parking Assumes no realignment of Donelson Pike Total net gain: 8,000 spaces Convert CONRAC to public parking (3,400 spaces) Expand existing parking structure to the east (three levels, 6,500 spaces) Total spaces: 20,800

63 Airport Development Concepts Parking Concept 3 Convert CONRAC to public parking Pros Cons Can be built without realignment of Donelson Pike. Requires development of large multi-level parking structure. Increases amount of parking within walking distance of the passenger terminal. Requires the CONRAC to be converted to public parking. New remote CONRAC facility required. Does not simplify the parking operations or wayfinding. No room to expand parking structure after PAL 4 (unless realignment of Donelson Pike occurs).. Does not reduce shuttling costs.

64 Airport Development Concepts Parking Concept 4 CONRAC facility to remain Assumes no realignment of Donelson Pike Total net gain: 8,000 spaces Expand existing parking structure to the east (four and one half levels, 9,800 spaces) Total spaces: 20,800

65 Airport Development Concepts Parking Concept 4 CONRAC facility to remain Pros Cons Can be built without realignment of Donelson Pike. Requires development of large multi-level parking structure. Increases amount of parking within walking distance of the passenger terminal. Does not simplify the parking operations or wayfinding. Allows existing CONRAC facility to remain. No room to expand parking structure after PAL 4 (unless realignment of Donelson Pike occurs). Does not reduce shuttling costs.

66 Airport Development Concepts Parking Phased for before and after Donelson Pike realignment Total net gain Phase 1: 2,200 spaces Total net gain Phase 2: 9,200 spaces Expand existing parking structure to the east (four and one half levels, 3,700 spaces) Increase surface parking in Lot A by 7,000 spaces Total spaces Phase 1: 15,000 Total spaces: Phase 2: 22,000

67 Airport Development Concepts Parking Concept 5 Phased for before and after Donelson Pike realignment Pros Cons Phased approach for parking expansion. Requires development of large multi-level parking structure. Increases amount of parking within walking distance of the passenger terminal. Does not simplify the parking operations or wayfinding. Allows existing CONRAC facility to remain. Does not reduce shuttling costs. Provides room for horizontal expansion of parking structure.

68 Airport Development Concepts Rental Car Massing Concepts Rental Car Service Center Sites Concept 1: Assumes the rental car service centers would expand, as needed, in the existing service center area Concept 2: Assumes relocation of rental car service centers to an area east of Donelson Pike and be planned in a manner that facilitates a future CONRAC

69 Airport Development Concepts Ground Transport. Center Concept 1 At north wing lot Ground Transportation Center (GTC) area is 5.0 acres with a net gain of 2.7 acres City and charter buses continue to use existing center island at level 1 Vehicle conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles would still occur at city/charter bus lanes All shuttles pick-up and drop-off on level 1

70 Airport Development Concepts Ground Transport. Center Concept 1 At North Wing Lot Pros Cons Most incoming traffic related to the GTC is diverted before reaching terminal curbside (except buses). Requires relocation of employees from the North Wing Lot. Most outgoing traffic related to the GTC exits downstream of curbside (except buses). Eliminates pedestrian conflicts with taxis/limos/shuttles. Narrow site may limit GTC layout somewhat. Short walking distance (adjacent to rental car counters). Uncovered parking areas. Easy patron access and way-finding. Will not accommodate high-headroom vehicles (city, charter, and shuttle buses). Alleviates congestion on all three levels of curbside.

71 Airport Development Concepts Ground Transport. Center Concept 2 At parking garage GTC area is 4.7 acres with a net gain of 2.4 acres Conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles would still occur on level 1 inside of GTC All shuttles pick-up and drop-off on level 1

72 Airport Development Concepts Ground Transport. Center Concept 2 At parking garage Pros Cons With the exception of the city and charter buses, this concept provides covered GTC functions. Does not eliminate all pedestrian / vehicle conflicts. South-half of garage area provides for maximum flexibility for GTC layout. Not enough headroom for city and charter buses. Easy patron access and way-finding. May not alleviate congestion at level 1 curbside since ingress and egress are near level 1 curbside. Alleviates congestion on levels 2 and 3 of terminal curbside. Loss of approx. 350 parking garage spaces.

73 Airport Development Concepts Ground Transport. Center Concept 3 Adjacent to parking garage GTC area is 4.0 acres with a net gain of 1.7 acres All GTC vehicles would continue to pass between level 1 parking garage and terminal building thus not reducing conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles All shuttles pick-up and drop-off on level Would require relocation of existing parking exit plaza

74 Airport Development Concepts Ground Transport. Center Concept 3 Adjacent to parking garage Pros Cons Alleviates congestion on levels 2 and 3 of terminal curbside. All incoming GTC traffic must pass through the level 1 curbside. All outgoing traffic exits downstream of terminal curbside. Increases pedestrian / vehicle conflicts. Triangular shaped site may limit GTC layout somewhat. Requires relocation and reconstruction of parking exit plaza. Uncovered parking areas.

75 Airport Development Concepts Ground Transport. Center Concept 4 At south wing lot GTC area is 5.0 acres with a net gain of 2.7 acres Eliminates all conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles All shuttles pick-up and drop-off on level 1 No GTC specific traffic required to drive along passenger terminal curbside

76 Airport Development Concepts Ground Transport. Center Concept 4 At South Wing Lot Pros Cons No GTC related traffic using curbside areas. Narrow site may limit GTC layout somewhat. Least amount of pedestrian / vehicular conflicts. Uncovered parking areas. Easy patron access and way-finding. Requires relocation of valet functions. Long walking distance (adjacent to rental car counters). At Donelson Pike, a signal may be required. Potential safety concerns with roadway geometry.

77 Airport Development Concepts Curbside Congestion Existing Arrivals Curbside Peak Hour Vehicles Curbside Requirements in Linear Feet PAL POV Existing Required Surplus/ Length Deficit UF Baggage Claim/Arrivals Level Baseline ,054 (87) 1.09 PAL 1 1, ,254 (287) 1.30 PAL 2 1, ,500 (533) 1.55 PAL 3 1, ,831 (864) 1.89 PAL 4 1, ,363 (1,396) 2.44 Experiencing congestion and vehicle backup during peak periods Contributing factors include POV maneuvering, and double parking in through lanes related to angled timed parking Passenger Pickup Parking (20 spaces) = 324, Passenger Pickup, Curbside = 643

78 Airport Development Concepts Curbside Congestion Proposed Arrivals Curbside Peak Hour Vehicles Curbside Requirements in Linear Feet Surplus/ PAL POV Proposed Required Length Deficit UF Baggage Claim/Arrivals Level Baseline 843 1,286 1, PAL 1 1,003 1,286 1, PAL 2 1,200 1,286 1,500 (214) 1.17 PAL 3 1,465 1,286 1,831 (545) 1.42 PAL 4 1,890 1,286 2,363 (1,077) 1.84 Proposed Passenger Pickup Curb = 2 x 643 feet = 1,286 feet (signage will distribute POVs equally to each loading lane) Guard rail will prevent driver-side drop-off

79 Airport Development Concepts Curbside Congestion Proposed Arrivals Curbside Pros Cons Increased curbside parking capacity is gained through elimination of angled, timed parking spaces. Loss of angled, time parking spaces is a negative customer service concern. Improved vehicle circulation through elimination of recirculating vehicles waiting for angled spaces to vacate. Adds 319 linear feet of curbside parking capacity to bring the overall total to 1,286 linear feet of available POV curbside capacity. Added construction cost to construct raised concrete curb and sidewalk in place of open parking spaces. Additional curbside capacity deficiencies of PAL 2, PAL 3 and PAL 4. Note: The proposed Arrivals curbside capacity is approximately 1,286 linear feet (equivalent to two times the length of the existing curb) with no angled parking spaces. The existing curb length is 1,610 linear feet.

80 Airport Development Concepts Hotel Development Concept 1 Potential hotel location on northeast side of terminal This concept includes: 300 rooms with conference and meeting facilities Direct connectivity to terminal Ground level delivery access

81 Airport Development Concepts Hotel Development Concept 2 Potential hotel location adjacent to Donelson Pike This concept includes: 300 rooms with conference and meeting facilities Direct connectivity to terminal by moving walkway Potential two-way roadway access from Donelson Pike

82 Airport Development Concepts Hotel Development Concept 3 Potential hotel location on northwest side of terminal This concept includes: 300 rooms with conference and meeting facilities Direct connectivity to terminal

83 Airport Development Concepts Hotel Development Concept 4 Similar to Concept 2 with closer proximity to terminal This concept includes: 300 rooms with conference and meeting facilities Direct connectivity to terminal by fixed pedestrian bridge Potential two-way roadway access from Donelson Pike

84 Airport Development Concepts Hotel Development Concept 5 Similar to Concept 3 located further from terminal on the west This concept includes: 300 rooms with conference and meeting facilities Direct connectivity to terminal by fixed pedestrian bridge Potential ground level access and deliveries

85 Airport Development Concepts Hotel Development Concept 6 Potential hotel location adjacent to Interstate 40 and long-term parking This concept includes: 300 rooms with conference and meeting facilities Vehicular access off I- 40 avoids circulating within BNA roadways

86 Airport Landside Development Plan Overview A Six Sigma Organization

87 Airport Landside Development Plan Overview Identifies recommended land uses for existing and proposed property areas around the Airport Assists in developing an implementation strategy and development phase review Developed based of FAA development guidance criteria and previous BNA land use studies

88 Next Steps Finalize Working Paper No. 4 (Landside Development Plan) Finalize Working Paper No. 5 (Airport Development Concepts) Conduct Environmental Overview Complete Airport Layout Plan set Complete Financial Analysis Conduct Public Meeting No. 3 (March 5, 2013) Complete final Master Plan Update

89 Comments/Questions Thank you for your participation!