Meeting Summary ABE Master Plan Project Advisory Group (PAG) Meeting #4 December 12, 2017

Transcription

1 Meeting Summary ABE Master Plan Project Advisory Group (PAG) Meeting #4 December 12, 2017 Prepared by: File: Attendees: Kim Fabend, C&S Companies N See Sign In List The fourth meeting of the Project Advisory Group (PAG) for the ABE Master Plan was held at the Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority (LNAA) offices to review development alternatives. A copy of the presentation and sign in sheet is attached for reference. Following is a summary of items discussed during the meeting. Alternatives Development & Evaluation An update of the project process was presented as well as the status of on going elements. Marc Champigny provided an overview of the runway and taxiway alternatives, cargo development alternatives, and the alternatives associated with general aviation and service/support facility needs. Scott Tumulo presented on terminal area alternatives and Kim Fabend presented on access, circulation, and parking alternatives. The following items were mentioned during the presentation or through further discussion. Regarding Terminal Alternative 3A the separate FIS (federal inspection service) building would result in a poor terminal passenger experience since most international travelers would be getting a connection to another destination. Differing opinions on this because the service is not defined and could be point to point which would limit connections. The plans for Airport Road are continuously changing with the anticipated development in the area and subsequent additional traffic. For example, the one southbound lane being built on Airport Road may not be adequate for the additional development proposed north of the Airport. It was noted that there was a past parking study developed that evaluated adding parking vertically on the existing public parking area and potential access from the terminal roadway at different points which may be helpful if additional parking is needed in the future. There was a lot of discussion regarding truck traffic on Race St and Airport Rd due to development in the area as well as the potential for some, or all cargo moving to the northwest quadrant of the airfield. The preliminary preferred alternative drawing indicated maintaining the protection of the land associated with a 3 rd runway. It was noted that the previous Airport Layout Plan (ALP) showed a relocation of Willowbrook Rd. A recent subdivision development has language associated with it that would make the relocation of Willowbrook Rd come into Weaversville Rd infeasible or impossible. The current assumption is that Willowbrook Rd would be tunneled or somehow accommodated under the new runway, not relocated, but this will be reconsidered and confirmed before finalizing the proposed development plan. The information and discussion items above will be used for input and follow up as appropriate in the development of the master plan. Meeting was adjourned. End Meeting

2

3 PROJECT ADVISORY GROUP (PAG) MEETING #4 DRAFT ALTERNATIVES AND CONCEPT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE LEHIGH VALLEY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT December 12, 2017 Agenda Where we are in the process Alternatives Development Phasing and Reporting Next Steps 2 1

4 Master Plan Process Flowchart: 19 Elements 6/2/17 10/26/16 2/1/17 8/15/17 12/12/17 Jan/Feb 18 Mar 18 4/20/17 Jan/Feb 18 3 Alternative Development Runways Taxiways Terminal Area Ground Access and Circulation Cargo General Aviation and Support Facilities 4 2

5 Alternative Evaluation Factors Economic/Strategic LNAA Strategic Goals Construction Cost Operational/Maintenance Facility Requirements and Design Standards Development and Maintenance Implementation Feasibility Natural Resources/Sustainability Environmental Impacts or Challenges Sustainability, Long-Term Planning Social/Community/Passenger Experience Off-airport considerations Passenger/User experience 5 Airfield Facility Requirements Pavement Management Plan 5-year maintenance plan Increase/efficient use of capacity with taxiway improvements Address airfield design geometry, MOS s, if able Obstruction identification and removal Control RPZs/RW 6 blast pad RW considerations (EMAS lifecycle, extension) Phased extension of RW 6-24 up to 10,000 ft Maintain plan for 3 rd runway in next planning period, 20+ years 6 3

6 7 Runway 6-24 Preferred Concept Extend to 10,000 feet in one phase Consideration of costs to only move ILS, approach lights one time Current users priority to remove obstructions first Estimated timing in the 10 to 15 year planning period Estimated construction cost $21 million excluding land acquisition cost 8 4

7 9 10 5

8 Runway Preferred Concept Consideration of EMAS lifecycle as decision point for extension Estimated timing in the 10 to 15 year planning period Estimated construction cost: ALT 2 $46.2 million ALT 3 $53.7 million Alternatives exclude land acquisition cost Wind coverage dictates status quo is suitable for fleet mix operations Extend to 7,600 feet utilizing EMAS, to 10,000 feet not practicable Maintains long-term plan connection to 3 rd runway (20+ years)

9 13 Taxiway Preferred Concepts All taxiway improvements shown will help airfield efficiency Phasing priorities proposed to support other alternative development Runway 6-24 Taxiway Improvements: Priority Parallel, supports cargo, est. $18.7 million, year 5 to 10 Could be phased, north done first to support cargo, full parallel is operationally efficient and safer Runway Taxiway Improvements: Priority Entrance to terminal, swap with service road, est. $1.1 million, year 5 to 10 Low priority Parallel, when development on west, est. $19.9 million, year 10 to 15 Likely phased, portion to east is financially impracticable and in the 20+ year horizon 14 7

10 Terminal Area Require 8 gates: 7 for large regional jets, 1 narrow-body No additional required, but recommend adding 1 for flexibility Passenger security area is undersized Up to 4 lanes and 3,500 SF needed (double existing) Aged equipment and upgrades Some concession space needed post-security Minimal increase outbound baggage area Federal Inspection Service (FIS) Facility (exploratory) 15 Alternatives Terminal Area 16 8

11 Alternatives Terminal Area 17 Alternatives Terminal Area 18 9

12 Alternatives Terminal Area 19 Alternatives Terminal Area 20 10

13 Alternatives Terminal Area 21 Alternatives Terminal Area 22 11

14 Terminal Cost Estimates/Ranking Alternatives Item 1A 1B 1C 2 3A 3B Construction Cost $8,500,000 $34,050,000 $7,472,500 Contingency 20% $1,700,000 $6,810,000 $1,494,500 Construction Cost Total $9.1M $13.5M $10.2M $41M $9M $8.7M FIS Facility $9M $11.2M $15.7M Taken from Arora Report ALTERNATIVES 1A 1B 1C 2 3A 3B TERMINAL CRITERIA Economic/Strategic Factors Operational/Maintenance Factors Natural Resources/Sustainability Social/Community Impacts/Passenger Experience TOTAL SCORE RANKING Terminal Preferred Concepts Vertical circulation improvements: Escalator/elevator improvements or replacement, est. TBD million, year 0 to 5 Security checkpoint improvements: Build new security checkpoint and circulation to meet 20-year demand, est. TBD million, year 5-10 Long-term concourse expansion placeholder Mirror the concourse layout to maximize gates, beyond the 20-year planning horizon FIS facility feasibility: FIS facility development, est. TBD million, not tied to a year, dependent on demand or airport policy 24 12

15 Access, Circulation, & Parking Airport Road intersection congestion Arrivals curbside congestion Parking Reallocate existing public parking area More short-term & ADA spaces Employee/rental car parking will be sufficient Improve confusing intersection/entrance alignment Incorporate land use analysis recommendations Pavement Management Plan 5-year maintenance plan 25 Access, Circulation & Parking Common Elements to All Alternatives Changes to public parking ingress/egress Reallocation of public parking spaces increase short-term spaces Proposed development areas Travel Plaza, Retail Plaza, Hotel Demolition of parking booths on internal roadway New access & traffic signal No proposed changes to curbside areas at this time 26 13

16 Alternative 1 Ground Access and Circulation Terminal traffic separated from development traffic Two-way internal roadway for development area & multi-modal center Does not improve internal intersection No internal delay/queuing issues anticipated 27 Alternative 2 Ground Access and Circulation TBD All traffic moved to new access Two-way internal roadway for development area & multi-modal center Reduces confusion/conflicts at internal intersection but increases conflicts along internal roadway No internal delay/queuing issues anticipated 28 14

17 Alternative 3 Ground Access and Circulation TBD All traffic moved to new access One-way circulator roadway around development area & multi-modal center Reduces confusion/conflicts at internal intersection & circulator roadway Longer route for some internal traffic No internal delay/queuing issues anticipated 29 Access, Circulation & Parking ALTERNATIVES ROADWAYS/GROUND ACCESS FACILITIES CRITERIA Economic/Strategic Factors Operational/Maintenance Factors Natural Resources/Sustainability Social/Community Impacts/Passenger Experience TOTAL SCORE RANKING Estimated Construction Costs: Circulation Alt 1 - $1.34 million Circulation Alt 2 - $1.54 million Circulation Alt 3 - $1.98 million Preferred Concept - Alternative

18 Cargo Facilities Cargo Building Area (95,570 SF) Year Existing LVIA Ratio Industry Standard Ratio Average of Existing LVIA Ratio & Industry Standard Ratio ,372 85, , ,794 93, , , , , , , , , , ,884 Cargo Apron Area (474,530 SF) Industry Standard Ratio Average of Existing LVIA Ratio & Industry Standard Ratio Existing LVIA Year Ratio , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,927 Building area deficient by approximately 20,000 70,700 SF Apron area deficient by approximately 102, ,000 SF

19

20 35 Evaluation of Cargo Alternatives Total Program 9 Spaces Estimated Construction Costs: Cargo Alt 1 - $52.0 million Cargo Alt 2 - $79.7 million Cargo Alt 3 - $64.9 million Cargo Alt 4 - $61.8 million Cargo Alt 1 is only 3 additional spaces ALTERNATIVES CARGO FACILITIES CRITERIA Economic/Strategic Factors Operational/Maintenance Factors Natural Resources/Sustainability Social/Community Impacts/Passenger Experience TOTAL SCORE RANKING Hybrid Preferred Concept: Limit new apron in existing cargo area, new aprons and buildings built on north side Buildings, truck docks, GSE, employee parking to support operation Split operation, or reuse of existing cargo for GA hangars, deicing pad, RON parking 36 18

21 General Aviation Facilities T-hangars and aprons will be sufficient Additional conventional hangar space needed Year Total Conventional Hangar Requirements (SF) Existing Non-exclusive Conventional Hangar Space (SF) Surplus/(Deficit) (SF) , ,680 6, , ,680 (120) , ,680 (25,000) , ,680 (60,000) , ,680 (97,000) , ,680 (137,000) , ,680 (163,000) Tenant survey noted need for FBO improvements 37 Alternatives General Aviation and Support 38 19

22 On-Going Elements Still in Play Drainage Evaluation Obstruction Analysis PMP and Maintenance Financial Modeling All Projects on Approved ALP Subject to Environmental Review 39 Schedule and Next Steps Finalize Working Paper Development Finalize Preferred Development Concept Finalize Phasing, Incorporate Maintenance Complete Financial Modeling Winter Meetings PAG #5 Final PIW Final 40 20