Loading...
The Grand PlanPlanning experts discuss the airport master planning process, FAA requirements and recent changes in the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Inside Planning and the FAA ................2 Airport Master Plan Components ........3 Typical Master Plan Schedule ............3 FAA Funding Chart ...5 Airport Improvement Plan (AIP)................5 AIP Changes ........6 CAD Oft Carter :: Burgess Consultants in Engineering, Architecture, Planning and the Environment A special report from Carter & Burgess ou don't build an airport for now. You build it for the future and beyond. So, it follows that you won't know what you need to build —or much less, how to build it —without a plan. In aviation lingo, that plan is the airport master plan. The plan is the key to managing future air traffic, prof- itable tenants and continuous airport improvements. Up until the last couple of years, it seemed that no new major airports had been built in the US since Dallas/Fort Worth Inter- national Airport opened its doors in 1974. Existing airports, though, were diligently modifying and expanding their facilities; often, upgrading airports which were origi- nally built during or soon after World War II. Existing airport staffs focused on the three essential aspects of airport improvement: increasing capacity, enhancing safety and security and reducing noise impacts. In the meantime, recent ideas for new air- ports throughout the country seem to be exploding. Current aviation issues —the pri- vatization of airports and joint use or total conversion of military fields to commercial facilities —are part of this opportunity. The new and the soon -to -be -new airports include: Fort Worth Alliance; Denver Interna- +:,.,....1. NT,...4:L_.,., A .,1......,,.. ,. D,..�: ,.1. posed distribution center and cargo airport in Kinston, North Carolina; even a third air- port at Chicago, among others. The economy and local budgets have their ups and downs, affecting the aviation industry; but one thing has always remained constant: airports are growing stronger. No matter how sluggish the economic picture, airport planners and administrators maintain a level of improvement and enhancement; it seems US airports are always refining or expanding. What's their secret? Faithfully following their airport's master plan. WHY PLANNING FOR AIRPORTS IS NECESSARY Larry Bauman, aviation department plan- ning manager for Carter and Burgess, Inc., explains why airport planning is important. "We're advocates of airport planning for three reasons. One, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires planning. Beyond that, each airport should have a mas- ter plan for guidance into the future and to create an FAA -approved airport layout plan (ALP) which is a fundamental requirement for federal funding," Bauman said. "An airport master plan is typically a 20- year document detailing the projected demand for passenger and aircraft activity and how best to accommodate that demand," Bauman said. "We try to focus on key issues impacting the airport's develop- ment, and we work in a prob- lem -solving mode, " he said. ® - In order to qualify for federal funding, an airport must have an ALP, usually a by-product of the master plan, which is a series of drawings that illustrate existing and proposed facilities. "If the facilities presented on the ALP gain FAA approval, then and only then are they are eligi- ble for FAA funding," Bauman said. Hugh Lyon is director of avi- ation services development for Carter and Burgess, joining the firm in 1993 following 33 years with the FAA. "From the standpoint of the general policies of the FAA and how to maneuver through the process —that's some- thing I know very well," Lyon said. Lyon outlined an approach often used by the Carter and Burgess aviation group to offer clients advice on how best to qualify for enti- tlement and discretionary funds available. Through the master planning process, Lyon said, the airport staff develops long- term goals that identify necessary work which is consistent with FAA goals. "One key is determining how you can sequence projects. We might say, for instance, if you'll try to build this next, you're more likely to get FAA funding. We know what's important to the FAA and can make appropriate recom- mendations. Our credibility is a little bit bet- ter than most, because the FAA people know me and know that I understand what their problems are. " Bauman said the ALP is eligible for an update every five years. "This way, at five- year intervals, you're looking 20 years out in the future," he said. "Plan updates can be done every two or three years, if circum- stances affecting the airport change dramati- cally. For instance, an airport may plan to change from general aviation to commercial service. In that case, you must notify the FAA that you'll be doing an update and request funding." The FAA requires airports to have a mas- ter plan in order to be eligible for federal AIP funding of improvement projects. Bau- ® • man said, "Since preparation • • • of the airport master plan itself is eligible for FAA fund- ing, even small airports can • • have access to aviation con- - • sulting expertise to help them ® plan for the future." Carter and Burgess, Inc., assists • ® many clients • - • in the preparation of • ®® master plans. ® ® "An individual airport usual- ly welcomes the master plan- ning process," Bauman said. "It's a chance to create a blue- print showing where the air- port needs to go and why. Then we illustrate that future —how the airport should look." Another type of planning process, cre- ation of a system plan, is typically sponsored by multiple airports or a multi -county agency, or a state department of transporta- tion. Bauman said, "A system plan takes a look at the interactions of airports within a designated area or region." THE TYPICAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN At the outset, Bauman said, "We sit down with our client airport staff and negotiate a reasonable scope of the work to be done throughout the planning process and the associated fees. We work with the airport to gain FAA funding for the agreed -upon scope of services." Bauman and Lyon outlined typi- cal master plan components usually included in the scope of services and commented on each below. 1. Airport Inventory "The airport inventory is an exercise in which we paint a picture of the existing air- port conditions, as well as the surrounding environs," Bauman said. The inventory is a critical step in establishing the original benchmarks for the plan, he said. Bauman explained that accurate forecasts insure that the client doesn't overbuild or build too quickly. "Each master plan stipu- lates that its long-term projections be verified periodically through the plan years, so that airport officials don't spend money to meet unsubstantiated forecasts," he said. "When the master plan gets old enough and stale enough," Bauman said, "and you can't make extrapolations from the data, it's ,time to sit down and make another examina- lion—get a new benchmark. The industry is so dynamic that you cannot depend on assumptions and numbers which are ten years old." Such numbers are often based on a whole different set of assumptions than would be relevant today and Facility Requirements Bauman said, "What we do in a demand/capacity assessment is compare the forecasts of activity with the current abili- ty of the airport to handle that activity. We evaluate both current and future demand with the capacity of the airport to handle it." "After the demand/capacity assessment, " Bauman said, "We're charged with translat- ing growth into facilities; that is, planning the facilities needed to handle the demand. We may look at expanding or adding another runway to accommodate planned growth in traffic. We look at the terminal facilities, mak- ing sure there will be a sufficient number of gates." In addition, he said, airport planners may evaluate adding or expanding cargo ser- vice capabilities. "Cargo handling is a big emphasis for many airports today and is potentially very valuable, " he said. "If we determine that additional capacity is needed, then we identify a number of development alternatives and review them with the airport staff for their consideration," Bauman said. "We work to accomplish a final recommendation by establishing some criteria to evaluate these alternatives with the airport staff, " he said. Some typical assess- ment criteria are: • Are the alternatives compatible with the surrounding communities' desires? • Which generates the most benefit for the cost involved? Project ect e e ule Months from Notice to Proceed ®Mnmmmn • ©®®® . 2 1 Planning Inventory opacity OA 6-2 Interandal Complex =MEN MEMEN 10 Economic Plan s. Legend: =Task Duration = Stand -Alone Delivembles Q = Working Paper = Milectone/Other Meeting 0111101111111113 = Review Time ® Are they equally environmentally com- patible? ._ �• • ,FVVV&M Economic After the above questions are answered, a recommended plan is developed. "We take the single preferred alternative and estimate what it would cost to build over a 20-year timeframe," he said. "We typically recom- mend conducting an economic impact analy- sis," Bauman said, "which provides an air- port with good information, basically, to let their community know what the airport improvements will provide in the way of annual economic benefits. We also discuss what the plan may cost a community, either through a city subsidy or through any poten- tial noise impacts." Lyon said, "In order to do airport devel- opment with federal funds, you are required to ensure that any significant environmental impacts are somehow addressed. That impact can be noise, water quality, air quali- ty, wetlands, endangered species, etc. The basic principle of environmental activities is to test the impact of what you're doing against a threshold. Does the noise go out and encompass more than x number of peo- ple —the accepted threshold? Does it involve a wetlands area? Does it affect the habitat of an endangered species? If there is an impact, you mitigate it and go a different route. You replace the wetlands, you relocate the endangered species. Basically, if you cannot mitigate, then doing nothing is the preferred alternative." Bauman added, "Iri master plans, we typically provide a scaled -down environ- mental assessment, considering the human environmental issues such as noise along with the impact on the physical environ- ment. There are vastly different strategies for dealing with each impact type. We look at primary impact areas and whether the threshold of acceptability will be exceeded." "There's an agreement that the two major players in the noise business have come up with —that's the FAA and the EPA," Lyon said. "They have agreed on how to measure noise —on what is the standard. Basically, the limit of acceptable noise is 65 decibels, weighted with day and night values and averaged over a 24-hour period." The good news, Lyon continued, for air- ports built in the late 1960s, early 1970s, is that they were designed based on avoiding and/or resolving noise problems. He said, "Their boundaries were originally deter- mined based on noise studies. The bad news is that most of the airports in this country were built during World War II, before jet air- craft." Bauman said the Carter and Burgess avi- ation group produces a noise impact map, showing noise contours and then generates a noise compatibility program or plan to miti- gate noise impacts to schools, businesses and residences inside noise zones. The plan can address a variety of options including pur- chasing land, soundproofing, relocating, changing procedures, installing noise baffles or attenuators or implementing curfews. Carter and Burgess generates ALPs com- pletely by computer, Bauman said. "They comply with all applicable FAA guidelines and requirements. The drawings illustrate what the recommended plan will look like." The ALP is detailed by sequences to let the reader know which phase will occur within each timeframe. "An airport wants," Bauman said, "as part of the planning process, a forum where- by the airport staff can inform and educate the public about what they are planning. Public meetings give the constituents an opportunity to comment on the plan while it still is a plan," he said. "Even though public meetings are optional, we strongly recom- mend to our clients that they bring their neighbors in for workshops right away and set up milestones for getting back together around the table." Bauman said, "Tell them their issues are important and that you are there to address them. Give them a draft of the plan and get their reaction." EJ AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM In the US, the Federal Avia-. \ September 30,1994. Experts tion Administration (FAA) dis- assert, however, that members of . burses both entitlement and dis- the aviation community will. cretionaryfunds for continue to defend the need to FAA -approved airport projects increase appropriations levels through the Airport Improve- for 1995 f 96. meet Program (AIP). The FAA } Items of interest in the newly . encourages airports to have a -• authorized program include: master plan in order to more ade- quately justify federal AIP fund Military Airport Program ing of improvement projects. 010 (MAP) AIl' funding sources are air- port user fees, like ticket and fuel Thin program provides for spe- itaxes which are placed in a trust cial set -asides for safety and capacity improvements of public fund; yet, he A]P funds are airports which were formerly accessible to airports only if re - military facilities. MAP and the authorized by Congress. While 2.5 percent of A11' has been re -authorization occurred every five years early in the program, extended through 1996; increas- legislation has been inconsistent ing from 12 to 15 the number of participating airports. All air - in recent tunes. ports must adhere to the five - Lyon said, "The scope of the year limit on participation in the program in the US is $1 billion plus for all airports. program. For airports added to the program iri the The AIP stipulates that the money is designated for future, FAA must demonstrate that grants to the air- _ airport improverY' nt.and, has to be spent at the air- port willreduce delays at an airport having more than port —for specific planning and development, includ- 20,000 hours of annual delays. ing land: ' The legislation became entangled for several rea- Pavement Maintenance sons, Lyon' explained, one of which was an allegation No funds will be available for the replacement or that a California airport diverted AIP funds to city ser- construction of pavement unless the airport provides vices. In addition, Lyon said, "The problems they had were with sortie of the details, like riders not relating Conrfnued Next Page to the grant program, a rates and charges squabble and the pro duct liability issue for general aviation air- craft." Lyon remained hopeful that the controversies FAA Authorized Funding Summary would be resolved and the AIP renewed before the end of the "fiscal'year. He explained, "We made sure program FY94 FY95 FY96 our clients and potential clients were awarethat they Airport Improvement didn't have to be worried'about the end of the federal program $2.105" $2.161 $2.214 (billions) AIP It's a very popular program, so it's highly unlike- ly they would discontinue it." He advised the firm's Facilities and Equipment $2.524 $2.670 $2.735 (billions) airport clients that ..this type of re -authorization delay has happened before." FAA Operations $4.576 $4.674 $4.810 (billions) On August 23,1994, President Clinton signed into law the FAAAuthorization Act of 1994, which Research, Engineering and includes the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The Development $297 $266.8 $280.14 (millions) three-year period covered by the bill eliminates the ' Actual appropriated amount is $1.69 billion. struggle for funding authorization through fiscal year 1996. The timing of its passage enabled the remainder of the 1994 appropriated monies to be spent prior to 61 Airport Improvement Program Continued from page 5 assurances it has implemented an effective pavement maintenance program. Requires Department of Trans- portation (DOT) to study costs and benefits of a requirement that the manufacturer or installer of pave- ment maintenance and rehabilitation products provide minimum warranties. Terminals A federal share was instituted for terminal develop- mentat 75 percent for large hubs and 90 percent for all others. AIP grants may be used to pay for bond indebted- ness for terminal development at non -hub airports between January 2,1992, and October 31,1992. Quali- fications -based selection of engineering and design services, Davis -Bacon and veterans and DBE participa- tion are waived: Security Explosive detection equipment and universal access systems are eligible for AIP funding, provided they meet the criteria for funding of security equip- ment. Soundproofing Funding for soundproofing residential buildings at airports that did not undergo a Part 150 study is allowed, if there is increased noise caused by revised departure procedures in FY93. Miscellaneous Provisions Ninety (90) days prior to the approval of a grant application for anew large or medium hub airport, DOT must submit a report analyzing the impact of the proposed airport on the landing and other fees incurred by air carriers using the new airport; and the availability and costs of air transportation to rural areas in the geographic region. AIP grants may be made under letters of intent in the same fiscal year as issued. A state can sponsor an application for any group of eligible projects at several, airports. General aviation airports astride a county line will no longer require the approval of incorporated com- munities within five miles of the airport boundary to receive All' grants. The FAA Authorization Act included the aviation - related provisions highlighted below: Research, Engineering andDevelopment FAA may enter into cooperative agreements with federal and non-federal entities to pursue research, engineering and development activities on a cost - shared basis. FAA is required, in consultation with other appro- priate agencies, to establish a program to conduct research on aviation technologies that enhance US competitiveness. Prohibits the fraudulent use of "made in America labels" and directs the head of each office within FAA that conducts procurement to ensure that such pro- curements comply with the "Buy American Act." Expresses the sense of Congress that any recipient of a grant should purchase, when available and cost- effective, American made equipment and products. Passenger Facility Charges( PFCs may be used to fund airside projects to com- ply with federal mandates for the Americans with Dis- abilities Act and Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.. PFC applications must include adequate justifica- tion for each proposed project before DOT approves the applications. Revenue iY rsi Requires DOT to establish, within. 90 days of enact- ment, policies and procedures to enforce grant assur- ances requiring, airports to develop fee structures to make their operations self-sustaining and to prohibit at a minimum revenue diversions through four mech- anisms. An airport's use of revenues generated by the air- port or local taxes on aviation for purposes other than capital or operating expenses of the airport shall be considered a factor influencing against an AIP discre- tionary grant except in circumstances where the air- port's diversion does not exceed amounts spent dur- ing 1994plus an annual increase corresponding to an increase in the consumer price index. Civil penalties may be imposed for violations of assurances against revenue diversions. The maximum civil penalty for a continuing violation shallnot exceed $50,000. Miscellaneous DOT is required to conduct a study of innovative approaches for using federal funds for airport devel opment, including loans, loan guarantees and loan insurance. Bauman Lyon Crouse Nesta Addicks Carter and Burgess Specialists Larry Bauman, PE, Carter and Burgess aviation department planning man- ager, has conducted or authored numerous studies and authored handbooks and papers on aviation system planning, aviation planning procedures, airport financial control and economic impact. His responsibilities include aviation and airspace planning, system planning and construction, and project management. Bauman brings 16 years of experience in all aspects of airport master plan devel- opment to the firm, including civilian and military projects. Bauman said, "A good airport plan helps airport managers 1) maximize runway layout; 2) antici- pate future problems by building in flexibility; 3) maximize capacity; 4) enhance ability to park aircraft and 5) identify surplus non -aviation areas to allow maxi- mum revenue return." Hugh W. Lyon, PE, project manager and civil engineer, acts as liaison for Carter and Burgess to the FAA and assists the aviation group in thoroughly understanding nuances of FAA requirements. During his 33-year career with the FAA, Lyon served as assistant manager of the Southwest Region Airports Divi- sion. Lyon also provided management of the FAA's regional airport planning effort, and held positions in two FAA airport district offices with responsibility in Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas. Lyori s development and plan- ning experience ranges from work on major commercial airports including Dal- las/Fort Worth International, to special assignments for project management during the initial stages of Fort Worth's Alliance Airport. Edward P. Crouse, PE, RPLS, is a civil engineer for Carter and Burgess's avi- ation group and has 18 years of aviation -related experience. His extensive civil engineering background includes the design of airport improvements, railroads, street rails, streets, thoroughfares, state highways and interstate highways. Crouse's airport design experience includes the new design and modification of airfields, aprons, taxiways and runways. He has also designed the associated grading, paving and utilities. Nicholas L. Nesta, Jr., serves as a group manager and aviation planner for Carter and Burgess. He has 10 years of experience in aviation planning. His responsibilities include project management as well as active development of master plans and environmental assessments for both commercial service and general aviation airports. Nesta has been involved in all aspects of airport mas- ter planning including inventory, forecasts, demand/capacity, facility require- ments, airport layout plans, terminal area plans, Part 77 plans and profiles, noise and land use plans, access plans, utility plans, Exhibit "A" Plans, Schedules and Cost Estimates, economic/financial analyzes, environmental analyzes and site selection analyzes. Edward T. Addicks, PE, a group manager and transportation engineer, has 13 years of experience ranging from project management to cost estimating and design in aviation projects. Addicks' airport improvement projects include the preparation of program narratives, cost estimates and FAA pre -applications and applications for grants. He also has experience in developing master plan docu- ments that include the inventory of existing facilities, forecasts of aviation demand, demand/capacity analysis, alternate airport layout plans, environ- mental assessments, land use plans, terminal area plans, airport access plans, schedules and cost estimates of proposed development, economic feasibility and financing. 7 t I Would you like back issues of our other I When ordering copies of publications, or if you would like to be added to our t publications and technical newsletters ? mailinglist lease provide the followinginformation. To make changes to our t Y i ❑ 3-part series on ISTEA I mailinlabel please attach our label and mark the changes on the label. t g �P Yt ❑ Mobile Source Air Quality Analysis ❑ Employer Trip Reduction Programs Name/Title ❑ GIS : A World of Possibilities ❑ Texas Grants Parks Program Company ❑ EA s for Airports Address Would you like to receive back issues of City/State/Zip Carter and Burgess' Quarterly Magazine? ❑ Buildings & Interiors ❑ Challenges in Industry and Place mailing label here Manufacturing ❑ Responding to Environmental Challenges ❑ Land Development Questions or comments on this issue: ❑ Publicly Funded Projects Fill out and return this form to: ❑ Please call me regarding the above: g S Carter and Burgess Name: 3880 Hulen Fort Worth, Texas 76107-7254 I Phone: t I I t C� Cartern Burgess Consultants in Engineering, Architechire, Planning and the Environment Offices Arlington, TX (817) 860-8887 Austin, TX (512) 474-9445 Brownsville, TX (210) 504-2282 Dallas, TX (214) 638-0145 Denver, CO (303) 820-5240 Ft, Myers, FL (813) 334-2333 Ft. Worth, TX (817) 735-6000 Houston, TX (713) 869-7900 Irvine, CA (714) 476-2900 Las Vegas, NV (702) 794-0807 Little Rock, AR (501) 223-0515 McAllen, TX (210) 618-2256 Missoula, MT (406) 721-1471 Orlando, FL (407) 843-9335 Phoenix, AZ (602) 263-5309 Raleigh, NC (919) 783-5988 Tampa, FL (813) 971-4859 Mexico City (011-52-5) 254-6242 4" -- o PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER BOSS PLAMBECK CITY OF KALISPELL P.O. Box 1997 KALISPELL MT 59903-1997 904A Bulk Rate U.S. Postage PAID Ft. Worth, TX Permit No. 2265