Working Paper #5 Facility Requirements

Transcription

1 Working Paper #5 March 2018

2 Table of Contents Contents Airfield and Airspace Requirements Airfield Capacity Approach Capability Airspace Protection Runways Taxiways Airfield Pavement Passenger Terminal Requirements Methodology Aircraft Parking & Gates Ticketing Lobby Baggage Screening Security Screening Holdrooms Concessions Domestic Baggage Claim Federal Inspection Services Other Requirements Landside Facilities Terminal Curbside Terminal Parking Rental Car Facilities Surface Transportation Analysis General Aviation Aircraft Storage Fixed Base Operators Aircraft Maintenance Other Tenants Air Cargo Support Facilities i Working Paper March 2018

3 Table of Contents Aviation Fueling Airport Traffic Control Tower Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Airport Maintenance Utilities Airline Aircraft Maintenance Ground Service Equipment Storage Military Facilities Tables Table 5-1 Planning Activity Levels (Passenger Airlines and Enplanements) Table 5-2 Runway-Use Configurations Table 5-3 Average Peak Period Activity (Baseline Forecast) Table 5-4 Maximum Hourly Airfield Capacity Table 5-5 Taxiway Design Standards (in feet) Table 5-6 CIP Pavement Rehabilitation Schedule ( ) Table 5-7 Maximum Aircraft at Each Parking Position Table 5-8 Aircraft Parking Position Requirements Table 5-9 Ticketing Lobby Requirements Table 5-10 Baggage Screening Requirements Table 5-11 Passenger Security Screening Requirements Table 5-12 Passenger Holdroom Area Requirements (in square feet) Table 5-13 Concessions Requirements Table 5-14 Domestic Baggage Claim Table 5-15 Federal Inspection Services Requirements Table 5-16 Estimated Curbside Drop-off and Pickup Volumes Table 5-17 Curbside Vehicle Dwell Times and Lengths Table 5-18 Curbside Vehicle Classification Table 5-19 Curbside Volumes Table 5-20 Terminal Curbside Requirements Table 5-21 Parking Requirements Table 5-22 Rental Car Requirements Table 5-23 Intersection LOS Thresholds (delay in seconds) Table 5-24 Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service (delay in seconds) Table 5-25 Non-Terminal Roadway Segment Analysis Results Table 5-26 Based Aircraft Storage Assumptions Table 5-27 Transient Aircraft Storage Planning Assumption Table 5-28 Aircraft Storage Requirements ii Working Paper March 2018

4 Table of Contents Figures Figure 5-1 Baseline vs. High-growth Annual Enplanements Figure 5-2 Demand Capacity Comparison Figure 5-3 Existing Part 77 Surfaces Figure 5-4 Part 77 Airspace Areas of Concern Based on Existing Instrument Approach Capabilities Figure 5-5 Maximum Departure Range at Existing Runway Lengths Figure 5-6 Runway Protection Zones (Runways 11L and 11R) Figure 5-7 Runway Protection Zones (Runways 29R and 29L) Figure 5-8 Taxiway Concerns Figure 5-9 Arriving and Departing Passengers Activity Profile Figure 5-10 Arriving and Departing Flights Activity Profiles Figure 5-11 Existing Aircraft Parking Positions Figure 5-12 Design Day Flight Schedule for PAL Figure 5-13 Curbside Traffic Volumes (March 2017) and Scheduled Passengers (2016) Figure 5-14 Overnight Parking Inventory Figure 5-15 Total Parking Occupancy Figure 5-16 PAL 3 Peak Hour Demand Roadway LOS Figure 5-17 Airline GSE Storage Areas iii Working Paper March 2018

5 5. The purpose of this chapter is to compare the Airport s existing facilities to the current and projected levels of aviation activity, and the current FAA design and safety standards, and identify any enhancements that may be needed over the planning horizon to meet those demands. Requirements for the following Airport facilities are addressed herein: Airfield and Airspace Passenger Terminal Landside Facilities General Aviation Air Cargo Support Facilities Military Facilities The following describes parameters under which these evaluations were performed Guidance and Methodologies Facility requirements were identified using industry standard practices and guidance provided in several publications, including: Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay AC 150/ A, Airport Design AC 150/5325-4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design AC 150/ , Planning and Design Guidelines for Airport Terminal Facilities Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 25, Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace; and Order C Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) International Air Transport Association (IATA) Airport Development Reference Manual, 10th Edition. High-growth Forecast Scenario For this Master Plan Update, an alternative high growth forecast scenario was developed to reflect the potential for increased passenger airline activity beyond that of the baseline forecast presented in Chapter 4. This is effectively a what if scenario that provides insight into what facilities would be required to accommodate a significant jump in passenger activity over the planning horizon. Under this scenario, annual enplanements would reach approximately 1.65 million by 2036 and commercial air carrier operations would reach 44,100. These represent 41 percent and 22 percent above the baseline forecast respectively. Correspondingly, peak hour enplanements would increase to 911 versus 671, and peak hour airline operations would increase to 17 versus 14. This scenario is predicated on the assumption that (a) another airline would begin service from Fresno to three U.S. destinations, and (b) a second airline would introduce a new international destination by Domestic service would begin with seven daily flights, serving two destinations three times a day and one destination once a day. Frequency would increase in the 2026 and 2036 schedules to ten daily flights, serving two destinations four times a day and one destination twice a day. The new international flight would maintain once daily 5-1 Working Paper March 2018

6 frequency through Peak hour operations at the Airport would increase by two movements in 2021 and by three movements in 2026 and 2036 over the baseline forecast flight schedule. A comparison of the baseline and high-growth enplanement forecast is presented in Figure 5-1. Figure 5-1 Baseline vs. High-growth Annual Enplanements 1,800,000 1,657,692 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000, , , , ,068 1,235, ,926 1,444,553 1,243, , , , Baseline High-Growth Notes: Includes commuter and passenger air carrier operations Source: InterVISTAS and Kimley-Horn, October Planning Activity Levels Recognizing uncertainties associated with long-range aviation demand forecasting, three planning activity levels (PALs) were identified to represent future levels of passenger airline activity at which airport facilities would be necessary. Because activity levels could deviate from the forecasts for any number of reasons, the use of PAL triggers allows for terminal facilities planning that is realistically tied to future activity levels as they occur, rather than arbitrary milestone years. PALs were chosen to coincide approximately with the baseline forecast for 2026 at 1.0M enplanements and for 2036 at 1.24M enplanements, which is similar to the high-growth forecast for 2021). The third PAL was selected to represent the 2036 high-growth forecast of 1.65M enplanements. Annual and peak passenger airline flight operations and passenger data for each PAL are summarized in Table 5-1. Where appropriate, the use of PALs will be used in the identification of terminal and landside facility requirements. 5-2 Working Paper March 2018

7 Table 5-1 Planning Activity Levels (Passenger Airlines and Enplanements) Base Year Planning Activity Level (PAL) 2016 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Annual enplanements 772, M 1.24 M 1.65 M Peak month enplanements % of annual enplanements 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% 9.4% Peak month enplanements 72,430 90, , ,715 ADPM enplanements 2,277 2,995 3,718 4,991 Peak hour passengers Enplanements Deplanements Peak hour total passengers ,538 Annual departures 11,545 15,193 16,299 22,071 Peak month departures % of annual departures 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% Peak month departures 1,069 1,407 1,509 2,044 ADPM departures Daily operations Regional aircraft (up to 90 seats) Mainline domestic Mainline international Daily total operations Peak hour operations Peak hour of departures Peak hour of arrivals Regional aircraft (up to 90 seats) Mainline domestic Mainline international Peak hour total operations ADPM = Average day in the peak month Notes: Aircraft operations include commercial passenger airlines only. Aircraft are categorized as regional (up to 90 seats), mainline domestic (90+ seat narrow body, domestic U.S. service), and mainline international (90+ seat narrow body, international service). Source: Forecast and flight schedules prepared by InterVISTAS, October Working Paper March 2018

8 5.1. Airfield and Airspace Requirements The assessment of airfield and airspace facility requirements was based on the following objectives: Confirm the airfield provides sufficient capacity throughout the baseline forecast horizon Identify existing and future obstructions to airspace and identify ways to mitigate any obstructions Assess the runways and taxiways according to operational demands, future requirements, and FAA design criteria Airfield Capacity Airfield capacity refers to the maximum number of aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings) an airfield can accommodate in a specified amount of time (i.e. hourly or annually). As demand approaches capacity, congestion and the average amount of delay per aircraft can increase. As the cumulative level of delay increases, operational costs increase and customer satisfaction decreases. While aircraft maintenance and weather-related delays are unavoidable, optimizing the airfield configuration to enhance efficiency can reduce the overall amount of aircraft delay. An assessment of the airfield s capacity was performed to evaluate the Airport s ability to handle current and projected levels of aircraft activity. This evaluation is used in long-range planning to identify and justify capacityrelated airfield improvements that may be needed over the planning horizon. Estimated airfield capacity and delay is expressed in the following measurements: Hourly Capacity the maximum number of aircraft operations an airfield can accommodate under continuous demand in a one-hour period Annual Service Volume (ASV) the maximum number of aircraft operations an airfield can accommodate in a one-year period without excessive delay Peak Period Delay the total amount of aircraft delay, expressed in minutes, that could be experienced during the average peak hour of the peak month Capacity Calculation Factors The calculations of airfield capacity and delay are theoretical and assume that air traffic control and all flight activity is performing at maximum efficiency. However, the evaluation does take into consideration the following operational factors and assumptions specific to the Airport. Meteorological Conditions This represents the percentage of time throughout the year that the airfield experiences VFR and IFR weather conditions. As described in Section 2.5.2, VFR weather conditions occur approximately 85 percent of the time, Category-I IFR conditions 9 percent of the time, and Category-II/III IFR conditions 6 percent of the time. With Runway 29R providing Category-III precision instrument landing system (ILS) capability and minimums as low as zero-foot ceiling and 600 feet visibility there are few times throughout the year when the airfield is closed to operations. Runway-Use Airfield capacity is related to the number and orientation of the runways available during various operating conditions. An airfield may have multiple operating configurations that are dependent on weather conditions, time of day, and/or type of approach procedures available. If an airfield consists of more than one runway, those runways can be considered independent or dependent of each other. An independent runway is one that is not 5-4 Working Paper March 2018

9 operationally affected by the other runways during normal operations (e.g., parallel runways with adequate lateral separation). A dependent runway is one that is configured in such a way that aircraft must wait for operations to complete on the other runway before resuming its own operation (e.g., intersecting or more closely spaced parallel runways). Airfields with dependent runway systems inherently have less capacity than those with independent runways. The FAA runway-to-runway separation standard for simultaneous, same direction, operations (SSDO) on two runways during VFR conditions is 700 feet. Under IFR conditions, the FAA recommends a separation distance of 4,300 feet between parallel runway centerlines. The two parallel runways at the Airport are separated 675 feet between centerlines. The Airport has an FAA waiver that allows for SSDO on both runways only during daytime VFR conditions and if large aircraft wake turbulence is not an issue. During IFR and nighttime conditions, the airfield operates as a single runway. Nine different runway-use configurations were included in the capacity analysis and are presented in Table 5-2. Table 5-2 Runway-Use Configurations Meteorological Condition Time Traffic Flow % of Time (Annual) VFR Day Northwest 45 % Southeast 8 % Night Northwest 27 % Southeast 5 % IFR Cat-I Day Northwest 4 % Southeast 2 % Night Northwest 2 % Southeast 1 % IFR Cat-II/III Day/Night Northwest 6 % Total 100 % Source: Based on FAA s Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS) and Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSC); Kimley-Horn, October Aircraft Fleet Mix Index Aircraft size impacts an airfield s capacity due to differing performance characteristics. The fleet mix index represents the ratio of various classes of aircraft operating at an airport based on weight. The FAA has established four classes of aircraft based on maximum certificated takeoff weight (MTOW): Class A 12,500 lbs. or less, single engine Class B 12,500 lbs. or less, multi-engine Class C 12,500 to 300,000 lbs. Class D over 300,000 lbs. A mix index is calculated for each runway-use configuration by adding the percentage of class C aircraft to threetimes the percentage of class D aircraft (C+3D). Review of ATADS and TFMSC operational data, as well as the fleet mix projections contained in the Airport Noise Exposure Map Update, indicate that aircraft greater than 300,000 lbs. account for less than one percent of the annual operations at the Airport. Therefore, the mix index for the Airport is predicated on the percentage of class C aircraft operations only. Based on the activity forecasts, it is also anticipated that the mix index will shift more towards class C aircraft over the planning horizon, which is consistent with national trends. 5-5 Working Paper March 2018

10 The mix index for VFR conditions was estimated at 40 percent for 2016 and 45 percent for 2036 under the baseline forecast scenario (i.e. approximately PAL2). For IFR Category-I conditions it was estimated at 70 percent for 2016 and 73 percent for During IFR Category-II and III conditions, the mix-index is 100 percent class C aircraft. Percentage of Arrivals and Touch-and-Go Operations This factor identifies the ratio of landing operations to total operations at an airport during a specific period of time. Over the course of a year, the percentage of arrivals is assumed to be 50 percent, or equal amounts of arriving and departing aircraft. A touch-and-go (T&G) operation is a landing followed by an immediate takeoff without coming to a stop or exiting the runway, and is normally associated with flight training activity. An airfield with a higher percentage of T&Gs typically has a greater airfield capacity than one with more itinerant operations. Given the noted decline in general aviation training at the Airport, T&G operations account for approximately five percent of total annual operations. Location of Exit Taxiways The location and number of exit taxiways affect airfield capacity as it directly relates to runway occupancy time. Runway capacities are highest when the runways are complimented with ample entrance and exit taxiways and no runway crossings. Exits located between 3,000 and 7,000 feet of the arrival threshold have the most effect on airfield capacity. Runway 11R-29L has three exits within this range in both directions. Runway 11L-29R has two exits when operating to the northwest and, upon the completion of Taxiway C4 in 2017/2018, will have one exit when operating to the southeast. The angled exits between the two runways were not included in this calculation as their configuration does not meet current FAA design criteria. Aircraft Activity Peaking Characteristics Estimated peak period aircraft operations, inclusive of all aircraft classes, for the planning horizon are presented in Table 5-3. While these figures represent averaged peaking activity, it should be noted that absolute peak hour activity has been recorded up to three times greater than the average hourly peak. Table 5-3 Average Peak Period Activity (Baseline Forecast) Total Annual Operations (Baseline Forecast) 97, ,556 Peak Month Operations (9.0%) 8,804 10,580 Peak Month Average Day (PMAD) Operations (30 days) Average Peak Hour of the PMAD (15-hour day) Notes: Reflects operations by all aircraft classes. Source: FAA Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS); FAA Traffic Flow Management System Counts (TFMSC); Kimley-Horn, October Hourly Capacity Hourly capacity is a measurement of the maximum number of aircraft operations an airfield can support in one hour. The calculated maximum hourly capacity during various meteorological conditions at the Airport is presented in Table 5-4. Due to the anticipated change in aircraft fleet mix over the planning horizon (to a higher percentage of class C aircraft), the capacity is expected to decrease slightly. Based on the data in Table 5-4, with an estimated 20 peak hour operations in 2016 and 24 in 2036, the airfield is capable of accommodating average 5-6 Working Paper March 2018

11 peak hour activity through the planning horizon without significant delay. During absolute peak activity periods with 60 or more operations, some level of delay would be expected during IFR conditions. Table 5-4 Maximum Hourly Airfield Capacity Meteorological Time Condition VFR Day Night IFR Cat-I Day Night IFR Cat-II/III Day/Night Source: Based on FAA AC 150/ Airport Capacity and Delay; Kimley-Horn, October Annual Service Volume ASV is based on the hourly capacity of each runway configuration and the percentage of time that configuration occurs throughout the year. Additional factors in the calculation include the ratio of annual operations to average daily operations during the peak month, and the ratio of average daily operations to average peak hour operations during the peak month. The calculated ASV for the Airport is 293,400 operations for 2016 and 288,700 for As with the hourly capacity calculations, total ASV is expected to decrease commensurate with the changing aircraft fleet mix. The Airport accommodated approximately 97,800 operations in 2016, and under the baseline forecast is anticipated to have 117,500 operations by For long-range capital improvement planning, FAA Order C Field Formulation of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) states that an airport is eligible to receive funding for capacity-enhancing projects once it has reached 60 percent of its annual capacity. Based on the calculated ASV, the airfield was operating at approximately 33 percent of capacity in 2016 which will increase to approximately 41 percent by Under the high-growth forecast scenario, which would add 7,900 operations to 2036 activity (i.e. PAL3), the airfield would be operating at 43 percent of capacity. The comparison of existing and forecast demand to the calculated ASV at the Airport is presented in Figure Approach Capability The ability of an aircraft to land at an airport is predicated on weather conditions, the level of pilot training, the type of navigation equipment both in the aircraft and on the ground, and the approach procedures established by the FAA. The Airport has instrument approach procedures providing vertical guidance and visibility minimums as low as ¾ mile for Runways 11R, 11L, and 29L. Runway 29R provides precision approach capabilities (ILS) allowing for Category-I visibility minimums of ½ mile and Category-II/III visibility minimums as low as 600 feet. According to ATC personnel, percent of all aircraft operations are to the west with Runway 29R being used mostly for commercial, military, and cargo traffic; and Runway 29L being used for general aviation traffic. ATC also noted that although westerly flow is preferred during most weather conditions, easterly traffic flow is preferred during poor weather conditions. As such, ATC has indicated a desire for improved approach capability to Runway 11L. This is consistent with the previous 2006 master plan and 2013 FAA approved ALP that recommended upgrading the approach capability of Runway 11L with a CAT-I ILS system. This would allow 5-7 Working Paper March 2018

12 Annual Aircraft Operations Airport Master Plan Update Runway 11L to have similar approach capabilities to Runway 29R namely visibility minimums of ½ mile for both runway ends. Because Runway 11L already has a localizer, installation of a glide slope and approach lighting system would be required. Figure 5-2 Demand Capacity Comparison 300,000 ASV=293,400 ASV=288, , ,000 60% ASV=176,000 60% ASV=173, , ,000 97, , ,400 50,000 0 Annual Demand High Growth Source: Kimley-Horn, October It is likely that with vertically-guided GPS technologies and the FAA NextGen program, ½ mile visibility for Runway 11L can also be achieved by adding an approach lighting system to the current RNAV/GPS-LPV procedure. Under this scenario, a glideslope would not be needed to achieve Category-I minimums; however, only air carriers and operators certified to fly GPS approaches to those minimums would be able to use it. Runway 11R-29L provides operational redundancy when Runway 11L-29R is unusable due to maintenance or incident. Previous planning recommended upgrading Runway 29L to a Category-II ILS approach. This would require the installation of a localizer, glideslope and approach lighting system similar to Runway 29R. Providing ILS capabilities to Runway 29L would increase FAA required safety and setback areas, which would impact California Air National Guard (CANG) operations and the use of industrial property located southwest of McKinley and Clovis avenues intersection. Runway 11R has visibility minimums of ¾ mile and a ceiling of 250 feet. It is not anticipated that the approach capabilities for this runway will need to be changed over the planning horizon if steps are taken to enhance the approach capabilities for Runways 11L and 29L. To ensure long-term compatible land use within the vicinity of the Airport, it is recommended that the City maintain the previously planned approach enhancements to Runways 11L and 29L. Adding an approach lighting system to both runway ends and relying on the advancement of vertically guided GPS technologies will likely support visibility as low as ½ mile. However, airspace obstacles in the approach to Runway 29L would need to be 5-8 Working Paper March 2018

13 mitigated to achieve ½ mile visibility (i.e. poles penetrating the 34:1 TERPS surface). At this time, GPS technology cannot provide instrument approach capability better than Category-I (i.e. ½ mile and 200-foot ceiling). Pursuing a traditional ILS would require additional infrastructure costs but could achieve lower minimums and would be able to be used by those operators not certified for GPS approaches. Achieving these objectives may ultimately rely on available funding and/or changing navigational technology and associated regulatory changes Airspace Protection The FAA requires certain areas of airspace near an airport remain clear of objects that could present a hazard to air navigation. Airports in the NPIAS are considered federally obligated, and as such, are subject to FAA Grant Assurances 20 and 21 which require airport sponsors to take appropriate actions to protect the surrounding airspace from incompatible land uses and to mitigate hazardous obstacles to navigation. The FAA has established two primary sets of airspace protection standards: FAR Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of The Navigable Airspace, and Order United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (e.g. TERPS). These standards have specific applications relative to establishing approach procedures and minimums, infrastructure planning, and AIP funding. Based on these standards, an evaluation of the existing airfield configuration and approach capability was performed using aerial photogrammetry and mapping obtained in October and November 2016 along with FAA Digital Obstacle Files data (current as of June 2017). In addition, nearby wildlife attractants also present a hazard to airspace protection. The following describes the various standards and identifies areas of airspace concern FAR Part 77 Requirements FAR Part 77 establishes imaginary surfaces around an airfield to identify potential hazards to air navigation. These standards promote compatible land use and limit the height of objects on and near an airport. The surfaces can vary in shape, size and slope depending on the available approach procedures to the runway ends. Based on existing instrument approach capabilities at the Airport, Figure 5-3 illustrates the Part 77 surfaces which are described as follows. Primary Surface The surface is longitudinally centered on the runway. The elevation of any point on the surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. For both runways, the Primary Surface is 1,000 feet wide and extends 200 feet beyond the ends of each runway. Approach Surface The surface is longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extends outward and upward from the end of the Primary Surface. The inner width of the Approach Surface is the same width of the Primary Surface. For Runway 29R, the Approach Surface is 50,000 feet long with a slope of 50:1 for the first 10,000 feet and a slope of 40:1 for the remaining 40,000 feet, expanding to an outer width of 16,000 feet. Runways 11L, 29L and 11R have an Approach Surface measuring 10,000 feet long with a slope of 34:1, and an outer width of 4,000 feet. Transitional Surface This surface extends outward and upward from the sides of the Primary Surface and from the sides of the Approach Surfaces at a slope of 7 to 1, up to the height of the Horizontal Surface. For the portions of the Precision Approach Surface that extends beyond the limits of the Conical Surface, the Transitional Surface extends 5,000 feet from the edge of the Approach Surface. 5-9 Working Paper March 2018

14 Horizontal Surface This surface is a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation. The Horizontal Surface extends 10,000 feet from the ends of the Primary Surface at an elevation of feet MSL. Conical Surface This surface extends outward and upward from the periphery of the Horizontal Surface. The Conical Surface extends at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. Penetrations to these imaginary surfaces, either natural or manmade, are identified as obstructions and must be evaluated by the FAA. If not removable, obstacles can be mitigated through appropriate marking and/or lighting. If not mitigated appropriately, obstacles could adversely affect approach and departure minimums and/or operational procedures. An analysis of the Part 77 surfaces based on existing instrument approach capabilities identified 3 general areas of concern which are described below and illustrated in Figure 5-4. Western Approach Area There are four distinct areas of vegetative obstructions that penetrate the Approach Surfaces by up to 28 feet and the Transitional Surfaces by up to 51 feet. The majority of these are on Airport property that is currently occupied by the City Police Department Training facility (Area A) west of Chestnut Avenue. There are also several trees on adjacent off-airport parcels in the same general location (Areas F and G). Multiple off-airport trees along Dakota Avenue, near the intersection of Fine Avenue (Area H), have also been identified as obstructions. While removal of all these obstructions should be pursued, the off-airport obstruction will require coordination with the land owners and possibly the acquisition of avigation easements to enable removal. In addition to these areas of concern, there are five utility poles along Chestnut Avenue and one light pole along Dakota Avenue that, while they are Part 77 surface penetrations, are not considered of particular concern and will likely remain. Further coordination with the FAA and City is recommended to determine if obstruction lighting of these obstacles is warranted. Eastern Approach Area There are three on-airport areas of vegetative obstructions including 12 trees at the intersection of McKinley and Clovis Avenues (Area C) and three trees on the CANG base (Areas D and E). These trees penetrate the Approach and Transition surfaces by up to 22 feet. As these are on Airport property, their removal should be straight forward to accomplish. There is also a billboard, a utility pole and a smoke stack on adjacent commercial property at the intersection of McKinley and Clovis Avenues that penetrate the Approach surface by up to 10 feet (Area J). Mitigation would require coordination with the property owner. It should be noted that a portion of Clovis Avenue (Area I) penetrates the Approach surface to Runway 29R by approximately five 5 feet but is mitigated by the Runway 29L displaced threshold. There are several light and utility poles near the intersection of McKinley and Clovis Avenues that penetrate the Approach surfaces, however, these are equipped with FAA standard obstruction lighting to mitigate their impact and alert pilots of their presence. Within the CANG base, there are also several light poles that penetrate the Approach and Transition surfaces. While these are equipped with obstruction lights, two of the poles located along the CANG apron are limiting factors to the approach visibility minimums of Runway 29L. Northern Transitional Surface Approximately six trees within the golf course on Airport property, just north of Taxiway C penetrate the Transitional surface by up to 19 feet (Area B). These obstructions should be removed Working Paper March 2018

15 Implementation of the planned approach improvements to Runways 11L and 29L namely precision ILS approaches with ½ mile or better visibility minimums would alter some of these surfaces and likely increase the number of areas of concern Working Paper March 2018

16 Figure 5-3 Existing Part 77 Surfaces Source: Kimley-Horn, October Working Paper March 2018

17 Figure 5-4 Part 77 Airspace Areas of Concern Based on Existing Instrument Approach Capabilities Source: Kimley-Horn, October Working Paper March 2018

18 Runway End Siting Requirements As outlined in TERPS, the FAA has established sloping Obstacle Clearance Surfaces (OCS) that are used in the design and approval of instrument flight procedures. These are intended to provide obstacle-free paths for aircraft descending on a glide path to landing or climbing in a departure or missed approach. They also effectively add another layer of protection in cases where objects that penetrate the Part 77 surfaces cannot be removed or mitigated. The basic TERPS surfaces are also referenced in AC 150/ A Airport Design, and are used to establish landing threshold and departure end of runway locations. Like the Part 77 surfaces, these surfaces can vary in shape, size and slope based on the approach capability of each specific runway end. The following provides a description of these surfaces. Threshold Siting Surface 1 The significance of this TERPS surface is that it is generally less encumbering than the Part 77 Approach Surface, but it is more critically sensitive to obstacle penetrations. In this regard, Part 77 can be viewed as an initial screening mechanism for obstructions and the airport owner should develop a mitigation strategy and continually strive to remedy areas of concern. However, the Threshold Siting Surface is much more critical and penetrations must be addressed with urgency to ensure the safety of aircraft operations which would otherwise result in adjustments to the approach procedures to restore safety. Obstructions to TERPS surfaces that cannot be removed will often result in increased approach minimums and if the obstructions are severe enough cancellation of the approach procedure. At the Airport these surfaces begin 200 feet from the runway end (or 200 feet from the displaced threshold on runway end 29R) and extend outwards for 10,000 feet. The inner width is 800 feet and the outer width is 3,800 feet. For runway ends 11L, 11R, 29L the slope of the surface is 20:1, and for the Runway 29R end it is 34:1. Analysis of these surfaces indicate that there are no obstacle penetrations, thus effectively mitigating the Part 77 obstructions identified previously. While the Threshold Siting Surfaces indicate that safe operations can be maintained, removal of the vegetative Part 77 obstructions should still be pursued as the penetrations will increase with tree growth. Glide Path Qualification Surface (GQS) The GQS is an imaginary surface applied to runway ends that support instrument approaches with vertical guidance. The surface extends 10,000 feet from the runway threshold along the runway centerline extended to the Decision Altitude (DA) for the procedure. At the Airport these surfaces have an inner width of 350 feet and an outer width of 1,520 feet; the slope is 30:1. The airspace analysis found one tree penetration to the GQS off the Runway 11R end. The tree penetration is less than one foot and is on Airport property, near the intersection of East Robinson and North Dearing Avenue. It is recommended that the tree be cut and/or removed to ensure that the approach capability of that runway is not compromised. Departure Surface The departure surface is a trapezoid shape that begins at the end of the runway or the end of the Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) if Declared Distances are applied (refer to Section ). The surface begins at an 1 Also known as an Approach Surface per AC 150/ A Airport Design, Table 3-2 Approach/Departure Standards ; and should not be confused with the Approach Surfaces as defined in FAR Part Working Paper March 2018

19 inner width of 1,000 feet, extends along the extended runway centerline for 10,200 feet at a slope of 40:1, to an outer width of 6,466 feet. These surfaces, when clear, allow pilots to follow standard departure procedures with standard rates of climb. According to FAA AC 150/ A, obstacles frequently penetrate departure surfaces. Known penetrations to these surfaces are identified in the FAA s flight procedure publications used by pilots for flight planning. If the penetrations are substantial enough, the FAA may require non-standard rates of climb, higher departure minimums, or reduction in runway length available for takeoff. Analysis of the Departure Surfaces at the Airport indicates multiple penetrations beyond each runway end. This is consistent with FAA procedure publications that note these obstacles. To date, these obstacles have not resulted in the application of non-standard departure procedures. Several of these obstacles are the same as identified in the Part 77 analysis, and removal of vegetative obstacles should be pursued to ensure continued tree growth does not adversely affect operations Hazardous Wildlife Attractants The Airport maintains a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) to minimize and mitigate potential airspace hazards caused by wildlife (e.g. birds, deer) and their attractants (e.g., open water, food sources, landfills, etc.). At this time, there are no known issues to be addressed in terms of hazardous wildlife attractants. It is recommended that the Airport continue to comply with its WHMP which was approved by the FAA in As new development occurs in areas nearby the Airport, it is possible that new attractants could be created; and therefore, it is recommended that the City work with local municipalities to monitor such developments Runways This section summarizes pertinent requirements, standards, and recommendations for the Airport s runways Runway Length A runway length analysis was performed based on specific aircraft performance characteristics documented in applicable aircraft manufacturer s Aircraft Planning Manuals (APMs) to ensure that the Airport is capable of supporting existing and forecast aircraft operational demands. Per the guidance provided in AC 150/5325-4B Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, the following factors were used in the runway length calculations: model and engine type, payload, estimated takeoff and landing weight, temperature, elevation, runway gradient, and stage length. The existing runways are 9,539 feet and 8,008 feet in length. Currently, the longest stage length is ±1,503 nm to Chicago (ORD) offed by United Airlines; flights to Morelia and Guadalajara Mexico with Volaris and Aeromexico follow closely at long ±1,411 nm and ±1,295 nm respectively. Volaris utilizes Airbus A320 aircraft and AeroMexico utilizes Boeing 737 aircraft. While air cargo operations are typically within California, UPS occasionally operates to Louisville, KY during the holiday season, which has a stage length of ±1,611 NM. Both FedEx and UPS operate Boeing aircraft. Figure 5-5 depicts the maximum ranges of the design aircraft family (Boeing 737 and Airbus A320) when departing from the Airport at existing runway lengths with a 90 percent payload. Based on current market trends, including airline routes and international connections, additional runway length is not warranted at this time Working Paper March 2018

20 Figure 5-5 Maximum Departure Range at Existing Runway Lengths Source: Kimley-Horn, August Previous planning, including the 2006 master plan and 2013 FAA approved ALP, recommended extensions to both runways to (1) increase payload and/or range capabilities for aircraft such as the Boeing 767; and (2) increase the ability of Runway 11R-29L to provide redundancy for Runway 11L-29R. Runway 11L-29R was planned to be extended 773 feet to the northwest to a total length of 10,312 feet (including a displaced threshold to Runway 29R). A runway extension in this area is limited by Chestnut Avenue, Chestnut Diagonal, and Dakota Avenue. Runway 11R-29L was planned to be extended southeastward to a total length of 8,600 feet. This extension is complicated by the existing CANG facilities, alignment of Taxiway B, and land uses south of McKinley Avenue. Acknowledging these concerns and the fact that extensions are not warranted during the planning horizon, it is recommended that the previously planned runway lengths be retained on the ALP to preserve the ability to pursue such extensions should they become warranted in the future. This is consistent with the regional zoning and land use plans and will help continue the promotion of compatible development in the local area Working Paper March 2018

21 Runway Protection Zones Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) are designated areas beyond the runway ends mandated by the FAA to maintain compatible land use and enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. These areas begin 200 feet beyond the runway end, are trapezoidal in shape, and are centered on the extended runway centerline. Airports should maintain positive control of the RPZs through fee-simple acquisition, easement or userestrictions/agreements. Such control includes clearing of RPZ areas of incompatible objects and activities including habitable buildings and congregations of people. Displaced thresholds and declared distances may require the application of separate approach and departure RPZs. RPZ dimensions vary depending on the approach minimums of the runway. For Runways 11L, 11R, and 29L (which have minimums not lower than ¾ mile), the inner width of the RPZ is 1,000 feet, the outer width is 1,510 feet, and the length is 1,700 feet. This equates to approximately 49 acres of land-use protection. With minimums of less than ½ mile, the RPZ for Runway 29R has an inner width of 1,000 feet, an outer width of 1,750 feet, and a length of 2,500 feet for an approximate total of 79 acres. The following is an evaluation of the existing and planned RPZs for each runway end, which are depicted in Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7. Runway 11L The existing RPZ extends beyond Chestnut and Dakota Avenues but is contained almost entirely within Airport property, including a ponding basin and Leaky Acres. Improving the approach minimums to ½ mile would increase the size of the RPZ to 79 acres which would encompass more of Leaky Acres as well as additional property currently leased to the Fresno Police Department. Extending the runway to the northwest would shift the RPZ further into Leaky Acres. Runway 29R The existing and future RPZ to this runway are the same, and extend across McKinley and Clovis Avenues but is contained almost entirely within Airport property including the solar farm. Runway 11R The existing and future RPZ to this runway are also the same. It is contained almost entirely within Airport property including Leaky Acres and the land currently occupied by the Fresno Police Department. There are however several residential properties at the corner of Chestnut and Dayton Avenue that are incompatible with the RPZ at 11R. Runway 29L The existing RPZ is contained within Airport property west of Clovis Avenue, but does encompass several of the CANG ready-alert aircraft shelters. Improving the approach minimums to ½ mile would increase the size of the RPZ to 79 acres which would encompass additional CANG buildings and approximately 1.5 acres of commercial/industrial storage property south of McKinley Avenue. Extending the runway southeastward would cause the RPZ to further encumber the adjacent industrial properties up to approximately 7 acres Working Paper March 2018

22 Airport Master Plan Update Figure 5-6 Runway Protection Zones (Runways 11L and 11R) Source: Kimley-Horn, October Figure 5-7 Runway Protection Zones (Runways 29R and 29L) Source: Kimley-Horn, October Working Paper March 2018

23 Magnetic Declination The runway end designation is a whole number, rounded to the nearest one-tenth of the magnetic azimuth along the runway centerline when viewed from the direction of the approach. For parallel runways the designator number is supplemented by a letter to specify left or right when viewed from the approach (e.g. Runway 11L vs. 11R). Due to the changing magnetic declination of the earth, runway end designations are subject to change over time. Based on the changing magnetic declination of 0.09 W per year (NOAA 2017), it is estimated the runway designators will change from 29 to 30, and from 11 to 12 in approximately 30 years Taxiways An efficient taxiway system enhances operational safety and provides for the orderly flow of aircraft thereby reducing the potential for congestion and/or pilot confusion. The Airport s taxiway system is comprised of two full-length parallel taxiways (B and C), one partial parallel taxiway (A), multiple entrance/exit taxiways, one cross-field connector (B10/C/10), and numerous apron connectors. Taxiways B and C are the primary circulation routes used by commercial and military aircraft and should be designed to accommodate Group-IV aircraft. By agreement with ATC, Taxiway A is limited to smaller Group-II aircraft and provides by-pass capability to minimize the intermingling of general aviation and commercial aircraft. Group-III aircraft needing access to the general aviation apron from Taxiway B utilize Taxiways B10 and B11 to cross Taxiway A. Taxiway B9 can also provide Group-III access to the apron, but is not currently listed in the agreement. Table 5-5 compares the characteristics of the existing taxiways to FAA design standards provided in AC 150/ A Airport Design. For taxiway design purposes, the critical aircraft used in the analysis are the Boeing (Group-III) and the Boeing F (Group-IV) which have a Taxiway Design Group (TDG) of TDG-3 and TDG-4 respectively. The TDG is an FAA classification based on an aircraft s overall Main Gear Width (MGW) and the Cockpit to Main Gear Distance (CMG). As summarized in the table, the Airport s taxiways meet the minimum FAA design standards. Apart from the standards laid out in AC 150/ A, Airport Design, the FAA provides additional guidance on taxiway geometry intended to enhance safety and reduce the risk of runway incursions. Incursions are the unauthorized presence of an aircraft, vehicle, or person in the runway environment. Examples include crossing a holdline without ATC clearance and taking off or landing without proper clearance. A runway incursion is not a collision or accident, but could result in one. Incursions can occur from a pilot s loss of situational awareness, poor communication, an error by ATC personnel, inadequate or confusing airfield marking and signage, and complex or non-standard taxiway geometries. The FAA guidance includes the following design methodologies: 5-19 Working Paper March 2018

24 Table 5-5 Taxiway Design Standards (in feet) Taxiway A Source: FAA AC 150/ A Airport Design; Kimley-Horn, October Taxiways B and C Existing Conditions FAA Design Standard for ADG II and TDG 2 Existing Conditions FAA Design Standard for ADG IV and TDG 4 Runway Centerline to Parallel n/a n/a B Taxiway Centerline C-640 Taxiway Centerline to Parallel West Taxiway Centerline (A to B) * East-198 Taxiway Width Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA) Taxiway Shoulder Width Taxiway Width The physical width of the taxiway pavement. Taxiway Safety Area (TSA) The TSA is located on the taxiway centerline. It shall be: cleared and graded, properly drained and capable, under dry conditions, of supporting snow removal equipment, Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting equipment and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural damage to the aircraft. Taxiway Object Free Area (TOFA) The TOFA is centered on the taxiway centerline. It prohibits service vehicle roads, parked airplanes and above ground objects except for objects that located in the TOFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes.purposes. Taxiwayay Shoulder Width Taxiway shoulders provide stabilized turf or paved surfaces to reduce the possibility of blast erosion and engine ingestion problems associated with jet engines that overhang the edge of the taxiway pavement. Paved shoulders are recommended for Group-III aircraft and required for Group-IV aircraft and higher. *Minimum taxiway-to-taxiway separation requirement of 169 feet provides 44-foot wingtip clearance between Group-II and Group-IV aircraft. Three-Node Concept keep the geometry simple and reduce the number of taxiways intersecting at a single location. Present the pilot with no more than three choices in direction ideally left, right and straight ahead. Intersection Angles Design 90 degree turns when possible to provide the best visibility to the left and right. In other situations, and where necessary, standard angles of 30, 45, and 60 degrees are preferred. Acute angled taxiway exits enhance runway utilization but should not be used as runway entrance or crossing points. Wide Expanses of Pavement Wide pavements should be avoided as they require placement of signs far from a pilot s sight and reduce readily observable visual clues. Under low visibility conditions, or due to a pilot focus on the centerline, signs can be missed. This guidance is especially critical at runway entrance points. When wide expanses of pavement are unavoidable, steps should be taken to avoid direct access to the runway. Runway Crossings Limiting the number of runway crossings reduces the potential for human error and aircraft incident and reduces the workload for both pilots and ATC personnel Working Paper March 2018

25 Taxiway Crossings in the Center Third, or High Energy Section of a Runway Runway intersections/ crossings should be limited to the outer third of runways where pilots have more options to maneuver and avoid potential collisions. Direct Access to Runways Taxiways should not lead directly from the apron to the runway without requiring a turn. These situations can lead to confusion where a pilot would be expecting to encounter a parallel taxiway, but unintentionally enters a runway. High-Speed Exit Taxiways Exit taxiways that form an acute angle with the runway centerline (typically 30 degrees) are commonly referred to as high-speed exit taxiways. Their purpose is to enhance airport capacity by allowing aircraft exiting the runway to continue onto the parallel taxiway more rapidly than if a 90-degree exit were provided. This, in turn, clears the runway for another operation sooner. High-speed taxiways should only be used as an exit from a runway, not as an entrance, and not as a runway crossing point. These exit taxiways should also not provide access directly to another runway. With consideration of these design methodologies, the following describes areas of concern which are also depicted in Figure 5-8. Some of the noted recommendations will have multiple solutions which be identified in a subsequent chapter of this report. The angled exits between the two runways (B3, B4 and B6), as well as the continuation of B6 from Runway 11R-29L to Taxiway A, do not meet FAA design criteria. Concerns include runway-to-runway connections, nonstandard angles, and crossing in the middle-third of a runway. It is recommended that these be removed. The configuration of Taxiway A between B6 and B5 impedes use of terminal Gates 16 and 17, and increases the potential for pilot confusion and miscommunication. When aircraft push back from these two gates, they enter the ATC movement area and block the taxiway. The wide expanses of pavement and offset taxiway centerlines can be confusing. It is recommended that Taxiway A in this area be removed and the non-movement area expanded to the limits of the Taxiway B TOFA. The Group-IV TOFA conflicts with six aircraft hold aprons that are currently marked for Group-III separation. These are located along Taxiways C12, B12, B14, B2 and the entrance/exits to the Runway 29R end of pavement. Hold lines would need to be shifted 36.5 feet to meet the standard. The Group-II TOFA along Taxiway A conflicts with the hold aprons located along Taxiways B10 and B9. There are three apron connectors that provide direct access from the general aviation apron to Runway 11R-29L. These are located at B11, B10 and B9. These are also the connectors that provide Group-III access to the apron. Mitigation can be achieved by shifting these connectors, however that could affect Group-III aircraft access to the apron, thus changing the design standards for Taxiway A. Additionally, there is an apron connector that could be considered as providing direct access from the Army National Guard apron to Runway 11L-29R. This connector includes a turn and is used solely by military aircraft and is not considered a high-risk concern Working Paper March 2018

26 The FAA recommends that hold aprons at the end of a parallel taxiway have rounded corners so as not become confused with runway pavement. The furthest west hold aprons on Taxiways B and C are square. Design of any future apron modifications should provide rounded corners Working Paper March 2018

27 Airport Master Plan Update Figure 5-8 Taxiway Concerns Source: Kimley-Horn, October Working Paper March 2018

28 Airfield Pavement As mentioned in Section 2.5.5, the 2015 Airfield Pavement Evaluation (Kimley-Horn 2015) assessed the condition of the airfield pavements including runways, taxiways and most of the apron areas, and identified airfield areas that will require rehabilitation over the planning horizon. Correspondingly, the City has programmed several pavement rehabilitation projects within their Capital Improvement Program (CIP). These include Runway 11L-29R, multiple connector taxiways, and portions of the general aviation and commercial aprons. The currently programmed schedule and budgets for these improvements are shown in Table 5-6. The ultimate taxiway geometry recommendation arising from this master plan study may alter the timing and/or sequence of these improvements. Table 5-6 CIP Pavement Rehabilitation Schedule ( ) FAA Local Total 2018: Reconstruct Taxiway C (construction phase 2) $7,252,800 $747,200 $8,000, : Reconstruct Taxiway C (construction phase 3) $1,813,200 $186,800 $2,000, : Reconstruct Taxiways B3/B4, Demo B7 (design) $226,650 $23,350 $250, : Reconstruct Taxiways B4/C4, Demo B7 (construction) $2,266,500 $233,500 $2,500, : Reconstruct Runway 11L-29R PCC (design) $2,085,180 $214,820 $2,300, : Reconstruct Runway 11L-29R PCC (construction) $36,264,000 $3,736,000 $40,000,000 Total $49,908,330 $5,141,670 $55,050,000 Source: City of Fresno Airports Department, Airport Capital Improvement Program , February Passenger Terminal Requirements The assessment of passenger terminal requirements included the following functional elements: Aircraft Parking and Gates Ticketing Lobby Baggage Screening Security Screening Holdrooms Concessions Domestic Baggage Claim Federal Inspection Services Other Requirements Methodology The method for determining future requirements is informed by and consistent with guidance from Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), Report 25, Airport Passenger Terminal Planning and Design, and the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Airport Development Reference Manual, 10th Edition. For each passenger terminal function, specific assumptions in line with this guidance, industry standards, and airline input, are documented. For planning purposes, it is assumed that terminal facilities will be developed to meet IATA s optimum Level of Service (LoS), which is a measure of the quality of service provided inside the terminal in terms of ease of flows and delays. Optimum LoS corresponds to overall good levels of service, where flows are stable, delays are acceptable, and a good level of comfort is provided. Previous versions of IATA s Airport Development Reference Manual refer to optimum level of service as being most similar to LoS C Working Paper March 2018

29 To derive passenger terminal requirements Average Day Peak Month (ADPM) enplanements were calculated. The peak month in terms of passenger enplanements at the Airport is July, with a total of 72,430 enplanements, representing 9.5 percent of total annual passengers. Further, approximately 9.3 percent of annual aircraft operations occurred in July The design day schedule is based on an average day in July (i.e. the total number of departing seats for the month divided by 31). A weekday from published airline schedules closest to the theoretical average day was selected as the basis for the development of future flight schedules (July 6, 2016). Accordingly, airline schedule data was collected to determine arrival and departure times, as well as aircraft types and seat capacities. This schedule data was then supplemented with load factor, origin-destination, and connecting passenger information from U.S. Department of Transportation T-100 and origin-destination traffic reports to determine passenger enplanements and deplanements. For future flight schedules, the July 2016 ADPM schedule was grown based on forecast passengers and operations, as well as interviews conducted with airlines serving the Airport. The ADPM flight schedule provides the basis for aircraft gates and apron parking requirements, as well as parking positions for aircraft that remain overnight (RON). Passenger peak hour enplanements included in the schedule drive ticketing, checked baggage, security screening, hold room, concession, and many other terminal requirements. Similarly, peak hour deplanements from the flight schedule determine the baggage claim, immigration, and ground transportation requirements. The activity profiles associated with the flight schedules for passenger and aircraft operations are shown in Figure 5-9 and in Figure 5-10, respectively Working Paper March 2018

30 Passengers <-- Arriving -- Passengers -- Departing --> 0:00 0:40 1:20 2:00 2:40 3:20 4:00 4:40 5:20 6:00 6:40 7:20 8:00 8:40 9:20 10:00 10:40 11:20 12:00 12:40 13:20 14:00 14:40 15:20 16:00 16:40 17:20 18:00 18:40 19:20 20:00 20:40 21:20 22:00 22:40 23:20 Airport Master Plan Update Figure 5-9 Arriving and Departing Passengers Activity Profile Rolling Hour Arrival and Departure Passenger Traffic 1, ,000 Time of Day 2016 Arrivals 2016 Departures PAL 1 Arrivals PAL 1 Departures PAL 2 Arrivals PAL 2 Departures PAL 3 Arrivals PAL 3 Departures Rolling Hour Total Passenger Traffic 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, Time of Day 2016 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Source: Forecast and flight schedules prepared by InterVISTAS, October Working Paper March 2018

31 Operations <-- Arriving -- Operations -- Departing --> 0:00 0:40 1:20 2:00 2:40 3:20 4:00 4:40 5:20 6:00 6:40 7:20 8:00 8:40 9:20 10:00 10:40 11:20 12:00 12:40 13:20 14:00 14:40 15:20 16:00 16:40 17:20 18:00 18:40 19:20 20:00 20:40 21:20 22:00 22:40 23:20 Airport Master Plan Update Figure 5-10 Arriving and Departing Flights Activity Profiles Rolling Hour Arrivals and Departures Time of Day 2016 Arrivals 2016 Departures PAL 1 Arrivals PAL 1 Departures PAL 2 Arrivals PAL 2 Departures PAL 3 Arrivals PAL 3 Departures Rolling Hour Total Flight Operations Time of Day 2016 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Source: Forecast and flight schedules prepared by InterVISTAS, October Working Paper March 2018

32 Aircraft Parking & Gates The number of aircraft parking positions are a key component of evaluating the size and configuration of a passenger terminal. As shown in Table 5-7, six of the contact parking positions are equipped with passenger boarding bridges (PBB) that can serve both regional and mainline aircraft. The remaining nine contact positions are ground loaded. Construction is expected to begin soon at position 8 to provide a PBB, increasing the number of PBB equipped positions to seven. This new PBB construction is assumed as part of the baseline condition. The remote positions listed as FIS 1 and FIS 2 are capable of handling only international arriving flights. Once the international passengers have deplaned and entered U.S. Customs and Boarder Protection processing, the planes are relocated to a PBB gate for boarding of the next departure. Table 5-7 Maximum Aircraft at Each Parking Position Position Maximum Aircraft Boarding Type 3 EMB-175 Ground loaded 5 EMB-175 Ground loaded 6 EMB-195 Ground loaded 7 EMB-175 Ground loaded 8 B Planned PBB 11 B PBB 12 B PBB 14 B PBB 14B B PBB* 15 B PBB 15B B PBB* 16 B PBB 17 B PBB FIS 1 B Ground loaded, remote FIS 2 B Ground loaded, remote Source: InterVISTAS, October *Note: when the PBB is being used at this position, it cannot be used simultaneously at adjacent position 14 and 15, respectfully Figure 5-11 illustrates the capability of each aircraft parking position. The total count of aircraft parking positions around the main concourse (excluding FIS 1 and FIS 2) is 13. Notably, the PBBs at positions 14B and 15B cannot be used simultaneously with adjacent positions 14 and 15, as they are not equipped with a dedicated PBB Working Paper March 2018

33 Figure 5-11 Existing Aircraft Parking Positions Source: InterVISTAS, October Figure 5-12 shows the design day flight schedule for PAL 3. The peak hour for operations is highlighted in green. Domestic flights are shown in blue; whereas international flights are shown in orange. There are nine arrivals and eight departures during the peak hour, operated by six regional aircraft and five mainline aircraft. Some of these aircraft complete full turns in the peak hour while others only arrive or depart. The peak hour flights utilize a total of eight parking positions, as multiple operations can utilize the same gate within the peak hour. Under these conditions, the existing parking positions cannot accommodate the PAL 3 demand, even when assuming gate sharing and ground loading aircraft. There are two ungated flights in the schedule, shown at the bottom of the chart. Based on the design day flight schedule presented in Figure 5-12 there are 15 domestic aircraft (five mainline, ten regional) remaining overnight (RON) at the Airport. There are two international flights that arrive before midnight to the FIS parking positions and depart shortly after midnight from PBB parking positions at the main concourse. Eleven of the 15 overnighting aircraft can park at a gated parking position until their morning departure time. Two of the four remaining aircraft can be towed to and from RON parking positions. The remaining two aircraft require additional parking positions at contact stands. Table 5-8 summarizes the aircraft parking requirements through the planning horizon. As shown, at PAL 1, the flight schedule requires two additional PBBs; at PAL 2, three additional PBBs; and at PAL 3, five additional PBBs. These requirements are cumulative against the provision of the seven baseline PBBs, so, if at PAL 1 two additional PBBs are provided, then only one additional PBB would be required at PAL 2. With regard to remain overnight positions, the airport has an inventory of 13, which is exceeded by one at PAL 2, and two at PAL 3. This assumes that every domestic parking position at the terminal is providing a space for aircraft that remain overnight Working Paper March 2018

34 Figure 5-12 Design Day Flight Schedule for PAL 3 Gate Name 9 PM 10 PM Tuesday 11 PM Wednesday 12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4 AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM Wednesday 11 PM Thursday 12 AM 1 AM 2 AM 3 UA CR2 SFO/DEN 5835/5224 UA CR2 SFO/DEN 5835/ UA CR7 LAX/DEN 5410B/5699 UA CR2 DEN/DEN 5375/5842 UA E75 ORD/ORD N127/N128 UA CR7 DEN/LAX 5645/5394 UA CR2 DEN/SFO 5862/5395 UA CR7 LAX/DEN 5410B/ AA CR7 PHX/PHX 3075B/3038 AA CR7 PHX/PHX 3075B/ UA CR2 LAX/SFO 5335A/5541 UA CR2 SFO/SFO 5347/5876 UA CR7 SFO/DEN 5452/5931 UA CR7 SFO/SFO N161/N162 UA CR2 LAX/SFO 5335/ DL CR7 SLC/SLC 4641/4624 AC CR7 DL CR7 YVR/YVR SLC/SLC N135/N A/4815A AC CR7 YVR/YVR N157/N158 DL CR7 SLC/SLC 4641/ DL 319 ATL/ATL N101/N102 DL E75 MSP/MSP DL CR7 SLC/SLC DL CR7 SEA/SEA N111/N112 N117/N118 N125/N126 DL 319 AM 738 ATL/ATL TOW/GDL N137/N138 N143/N144 DL CR7 SLC/SLC 4661A/4661A DL 319 ATL/ATL N167/N AS E75 SAN/SEA 3472A/3489A AS E75 SAN/PDX 3478A/3449A AS E75 SEA/SEA 3432A/3495A DL E75 MSP/MSP N145/N146 AS E75 PDX/PDX N149/N150 DL CR7 AS E75 SEA/SEA PDX/SEA 3474/ A/3491A AS E75 SAN/SEA 3472A/3489A 14 AS E75 SEA/SAN 3490A/3477A AA CR9 PHX/PHX 5635B/5700 AA E75 AA 738 ORD/ORD DFW/DFW N129/N /2533 AS E75 SAN/SAN 2142A/2143A AA CR9 PHX/PHX 5748B/5643 AS E75 SEA/SAN 3474A/3471A AS E75 SEA/SAN 3490A/3477A 14B UA CR2 DEN/TOW 5565/5723 UA 319 SFO/SFO 1667/427 UA CR2 TOW/SFO 5565/5723 UA E75 IAH/IAH N119/N120 UA E75 IAH/IAH N159/N160 UA CR2 DEN/TOW 5565/5723 UA 319 SFO/SFO 1667/ AA 738 DFW/DFW 1309/1201 YY 737 YY 737 PHX/PHX LAS/LAS N131/N132 N139/N140 YY 737 DEN/DEN N121/N122 YY 737 PHX/PHX N151/N152 YY 737 LAS/LAS N153/N154 YY 737 DEN/DEN N155/N156 YY 737 LAS/LAS N163/N164 AA 738 DFW/DFW 1309/ B AM 738 TOW/GDL 786B/787B Y4 320 TOW/GDL 950B/951B AM 738 TOW/GDL 786B/787B Y4 320 TOW/GDL 950B/951B 16 AA CR7 LAX/TOW 3021B/3020 Y4 320 TOW/MLM M101/M102 AA CR7 TOW/LAX 3021B/3020 AA E75 DFW/DFW N113/N114 AA CR9 PHX/PHX 5844B/5660 AA E75 ORD/ORD N147/N148 AA E75 LAX/LAX 3099B/3099 YY 737 PHX/PHX N165/N166 AA CR7 LAX/TOW 3021/3020 Y4 320 TOW/MLM M101/M AS E75 PDX/PDX 2060A/2059A AA CR7 LAX/LAX N109/N110 AA CR7 LAX/LAX 3097B/3097 G4 319 LAS/LAS 1816/1817 AA CR7 LAX/LAX 3098B/3098 AA CR9 PHX/PHX 5636B/5860 AS E75 PDX/PDX 2060A/2059A FIS1 AM 738 GDL/TOW 786B/787B Y4 320 GDL/TOW 950B/951B AM 738 GDL/TOW N143/N144 AM 738 GDL/TOW 786B/787B Y4 320 GDL/TOW 950B/951B FIS2 Y4 320 MLM/TOW M101/M102 Y4 320 MLM/TOW M101/M102 RON1 UA CR2 TOW/TOW 5565/5723 UA CR2 TOW/TOW 5565/5723 RON2 AA CR7 TOW/TOW 3021B/3020 AA CR7 TOW/TOW 3021/3020 UNG1 YY 737 PHX/PHX N103/N104 YY 737 PHX/PHX N169/N170 UNG2 YY 737 LAS/LAS N105/N106 YY 737 LAS/LAS N171/N172 Regional Aircraft (Domestic) Mainline Aircraft (Domestic) International Peak Hour Source: InterVISTAS, October Working Paper March 2018

35 Table 5-8 Aircraft Parking Position Requirements Base Year Existing Planning Activity Level (PAL) Activity Facilities 2016 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Domestic contact positions Regional jet (a) Mainline jet Total domestic contact positions (b) Cumulative PBBs required (c) International contact positions Remain overnight positions (d) Notes: (a) The four regional parking positions include ground-loaded positions at 3, 5, 6, and 7, as noted in Table 5-7. (b) Of the 11 total domestic contact positions 7 have PBBs, as shown in Table 5-7. (c) Additional PBBs required assumes every gate requires its own PBB to allow for the si multaneous use of every contact position. (d) Assumes FIS positions cannot accommodate aircraft parking overnight. This inventory of 13 includes all 11 contact positions, plus positions 14B and 15B for a total of 13. Source: InterVISTAS, October Ticketing Lobby The size of the ticketing lobby and the number of ticket counter positions are typically a function of the following: the number of peak departing flights; the number of peak enplaning passengers; the distribution of passenger arrival time to the terminal; and the ratio of passengers checking in at ticket counters, self-service kiosks, and online. The ticket lobby currently has 32 common use ticketing counters serving seven different airlines and occupies an area of approximately 4,000 square feet. Self-service kiosks are located along the interior facade of the terminal. In the evenings, meeters and greeters utilize portions of the ticketing lobby to wait for international arriving customers. The following additional planning components were assumed to determine future ticketing lobby requirements: A large proportion of passengers utilize traditional airport check-in as their preferred check-in method. As a result, it is assumed that approximately 85 percent of passengers currently use traditional check-in desks. As technology improves and passengers become more comfortable with these alternative forms of check-in, the percentage is expected to decrease to 45 percent by the time annual enplanements reach PAL 1, to 20 percent by PAL 2, and to 10 percent by PAL 3. As the percentage of passengers using traditional check-in declines, the percentage using self-service kiosks is expected to modestly increase from five percent in 2016 to 35 percent by PAL 2, and then to decrease to 15 percent by PAL 3. The use of online and mobile check-in is expected to replace the use of kiosks in the long-term. The shift toward remote and self-service check-in is expected to occur more slowly at the Airport than national trends indicate given the unique cultural aspects of the market. Nonetheless, automation will play an important role in the check-in process by the end of the planning period Working Paper March 2018

36 The use of online and mobile check-in is also expected to increase from 20 percent in PAL 1 to 50 percent by PAL 2, and to 75 percent by PAL 3. Passengers using kiosks to check bags are expected to increase from 50% to 80% in PAL 3. The percentage of passengers checking bags that utilize online/mobile check-in is expected to hold steady at around 30%. There are currently seven self-service kiosks in the ticketing lobby, and this number is expected to increase until PAL 2, and then decrease in the PAL 3 timeframe. The following additional assumptions are made for analyzing self-service kiosks: Based on airline surveys, it takes approximately 120 seconds for a passenger to use a self-service kiosk, but this number is expected to shorten to 110 and 100 seconds by PAL 2 and PAL 3, as more passengers become familiar with the system as technology improvements are made. Given the higher proportion of unfamiliar travelers in the market, transaction times are adjusted upward from this baseline to 180 seconds today and 150 seconds in PAL 3. The maximum queueing time is limited to three minutes, based on IATA ADRM 10 th edition, optimum level of service standards. Each kiosk occupies an area of 18 by 24 inches, based on industry research. Each passenger occupies an area of 14 square feet, consistent with IATA optimum level of service. Traditional check-in facilities outnumber self-service kiosks in the ticketing lobby, and have the following characteristics: Approximately 90 percent of passengers are traveling in economy class, while the remaining 10 percent are first class passengers. The average processing time for both economy and first class/elite passengers is 150 seconds, which is consistent with airline surveys. The desired maximum wait time for check-in is 10 minutes for economy class passengers, and three minutes for first class passengers. The dimensions of a traditional check-in desk are: 8.2 feet deep and 6.6 feet wide. Each passenger occupies an area of 14 square feet, consistent with IATA optimum level of service. Based on the above assumptions, the existing ticketing lobby and number of check-in positions can accommodate passengers demand throughout the forecast period. The required number of check-in desks and corresponding ticketing lobby areas are presented in Table 5-9 and Table 5-10, respectively Working Paper March 2018

37 Table 5-9 Ticketing Lobby Requirements Base Year Existing Planning Activity Level (PAL) Activity Facilities 2016 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Number of kiosks Number of check-in desks Traditional Baggage Drop Total check-in desks Kiosk area Check-in desk area Traditional 2,470 2,090 1,380 1,220 Baggage Drop ,180 1,940 Total ticketing area 5,778 (a) 3,230 3,340 3,150 4,000 (a) The existing ticketing area includes 1,917 square feet of ticket counters and 3,861 square feet of passenger queue. 4,024 square feet of public circulation behind the queue area is not counted. Source: InterVISTAS, October Baggage Screening All checked baggage screening is conducted behind the ticket counters. Baggage is transported from the ticket counters to the screening room on conveyors and then moved manually to one of three Reveal CT-80DR Explosive Detection System (EDS) screening machines. The existing screening room can accommodate two additional CT-80DR machines if needed, but an automated in-line screening system would require additional space. It should be noted that screening rates may increase as screening technology advances. Upgrading existing equipment to new machines, as they become available, can provide additional capacity. The following planning factors are based on the Transportation Security Administration s (TSA) Planning Guidelines and Design Standards for Checked Baggage Inspection Systems (PGDS, v5.0) to evaluate baggage screening requirements: The average number of checked bags per passenger is 0.9, based on industry averages. The certified throughput rate for the CT-80DR in a stand-alone configuration is 230 bags per hour, but one existing EDS operates at a higher throughput Table 5-10 shows the required number of stand-alone EDS screening units for the planning horizon. As shown, one additional unit is required to accommodate demand in PAL 1 and PAL 2, and an additional unit would be required beyond that to accommodate PAL 3 demand. After screening, baggage is loaded onto a recirculating unit to be transported to the cart staging area. This staging area along with the baggage tug maneuvering lanes are referred to as baggage make-up. The number of checked bags, the size of aircraft, and the number of departures in the peak two hours impact the number of carts required. Typically, one cart or container can accommodate baggage for a 50 to 75 seat aircraft, 5-33 Working Paper March 2018

38 depending on the business versus leisure share of the market. The number of carts required is also a function of passenger arrival times and how early check-in begins before scheduled departure time. The following planning factors used to determine baggage makeup requirements are based on ACRP 25 guidance and the demand forecast: A single cart can handle 60 bags on average given the size and type of bags checked at the Airport Ten perpendicular carts require approximately 70 feet of linear belt frontage Each cart requires 600 square feet of space The average number of passengers per departure in PAL 3 is estimated to be 78.2, and there are 0.9 checked bags per passenger During the peak two hours in PAL 3 there are 14 departing flights, which results in a requirement for approximately 16 carts. Based on these assumptions, approximately 9,900 square feet is required for the baggage makeup area. The current baggage makeup area has approximately 2,900 square feet, with carts oriented perpendicular to the recirculation unit. As shown in Table 5-10, additional area may be required in the near-term to provide more room for the movement and placement of carts adjacent to the recirculation belt Working Paper March 2018

39 Table 5-10 Baggage Screening Requirements Base Year Existing Planning Activity Level (PAL) Activity Facilities 2016 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Number of EDS units Makeup area (SF) 2,900 5,500 6,800 8,400 9,900 Source: InterVISTAS, October Security Screening The area dedicated to passenger security screening comprises approximately 4,300 square feet. This area includes three security lanes and space for passenger queueing. The following assumptions regarding passenger security screening were used to determine future requirements: A maximum wait time of 10 minutes with an average processing time of 20 seconds per passenger is desired based on IATA ADRM guidance. The maximum wait time and processing times translate to an hourly throughput of 180 passengers per lane, which is consistent with national standards The area assumed for each queueing passenger is 10.8 square feet based on TSA guidelines Each security lane occupies an area of 1,100 square feet (including queue area) While the requirements in Table 5-11 show that the security screening area may be sufficient to accommodate passenger demand through PAL 1, the constrained dimensions of the screening area provide challenges for accommodating re-composure as well as growth in the passenger queue. In addition, there is insufficient width to accommodate more than three security screening lanes beyond PAL 1. Demand in PAL 3 leads to a significant increase in the number of required passenger security screening lanes. This is due to an increase in early morning departures serving airline hubs not previously served. This increased demand is projected to last for a brief time period during the morning hours, so fewer security lanes are required during the remainder of the day. Table 5-11 Passenger Security Screening Requirements Base Year Existing Facilities Activity Planning Activity Level (PAL) 2016 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Number of lanes Security screening area (SF) 4,296 3,300 3,300 5,300 8,800 Source: InterVISTAS, October Holdrooms Requirements for holdrooms are related to the design aircraft size for each gate. Because each gate has the capability of serving several aircraft types, each holdroom should be assumed to serve the largest aircraft likely to serve the Airport. As shown in Table 5-8, the gate requirement during the peak hour varies between seven aircraft in 2016 (five regional jets, two mainline jets) to 12 aircraft in PAL 3 (seven regional jets, five mainline jets). To establish an upper bound for the holdroom requirement it was assumed that each regional jet gate would need to accommodate a ERJ-175 aircraft, with approximately 76 seats, while each mainline jet gate would need to accommodate a , with approximately 160 seats Working Paper March 2018

40 The area devoted to a holdroom is based on the following factors: Seats are provided for 70 percent of boarding passengers, which is based on IATA guidelines Seated and standing passengers occupy 18.3 and 12.9 square feet each, respectively An additional five percent seating adjustment factor is included to account for space taken by personal belongings An additional ten percent overall factor is included to account for boarding operation (counter and passenger queueing) Using these assumptions, an ERJ-175 requires approximately 1,300 square feet of space, and a Boeing requires approximately 2,750 square feet. As shown in Table 5-12, the Airport will require additional holdroom capacity at the ground loaded gates beginning with PAL 2. The total required area for passenger holdrooms is approximately 22,900 square feet in PAL 3. Table 5-12 Passenger Holdroom Area Requirements (in square feet) Base Year Existing Planning Activity Level (PAL) Activity Facilities 2016 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Gates 1 & Gates 5 & 7 2,550-1,300 2,600 2,600 Gates 6 & 8 2,550 1,300 2,600 2,600 2,600 Gates ,030 10,700 10,700 12,200 15,100 Total holdroom space 19,917 12,000 14,600 17,400 22,900 Source: InterVISTAS, October Concessions Terminal concessions include all commercial, revenue-generating functions. The Airport currently offers multiple food and beverage, convenience retail, and service concessions, both pre- and post-security totaling approximately 9,400 square feet of space divided evenly between pre- and post-security. Of this space, approximately 4,600 square feet is provided pre-security, and 4,800 square feet is provided post-security. ACRP Report 54, Resource Manual for Airport In-Terminal Concessions recommends that 68 percent or more of airport concessions at small hub airports be located post-security Working Paper March 2018

41 Table 5-13 summarizes the share of total terminal space devoted to concessions. The recommended concession space is based on benchmarking against airports of similar size, as reported by ACRP Report 54. The existing food and beverage concessions occupy about 6,400 square feet of space at the Airport, and 3,000 square feet of space is devoted to convenience retail. Based on ACRP guidelines, food and beverage concession space at the Airport is below average for airports of similar size. The existing concession space devoted to convenience retail (news and gifts) exceeds the market average space allocation in all PALs Working Paper March 2018

42 Table 5-13 Concessions Requirements Base Year Existing Planning Activity Level (PAL) Activity Facilities 2016 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Food and beverage (SF) Pre-security 3,392 2,620 2,530 3,130 4,170 Post-security 2,991 5,570 5,370 6,670 8,870 Total food and beverage 6,383 8,190 7,900 9,800 13,040 Convenience retail (SF) Pre-security 1, Post-security 1, ,240 Total convenience and retail 3, ,100 1,360 1,820 Total food and retail concessions (SF) Pre-security 4,637 2,720 2,880 3,570 4,750 Post-security 4,787 5,780 6,120 7,590 10,110 Total food and retail concessions (SF) 9,424 8,500 9,000 11,160 14,860 Source: InterVISTAS, October Domestic Baggage Claim Baggage claim requirements are a function of peak hour deplanements, the concentration of arriving passengers within the peak 30-minutes, and the number of passengers with checked baggage. Baggage tugs arrive from the apron and park adjacent to the claim unit to off-load baggage onto one of the two flat plate baggage claim units. The existing tug baggage drop off area is approximately 2,600 square feet, with an approximate width of 16 feet. This area includes the following components: Offload conveyor area baggage is moved from carts onto the baggage claim device Cart parking carts parking area for unloading, adjacent to the conveyor Work area working area between the conveyor and the carts for baggage handlers to unload Bypass lane additional lane to allow the unobstructed movement of bypassing carts while baggage is unloaded to the conveyor from stationary carts An analysis of existing and future schedules indicates that the concentration of arriving passengers within a 30- minute window (peak hour volume divided by the peak 30-minute flow rate within the peak hour) is 68 percent in 2016, 58 percent in PAL 1, 96 percent in PAL 2, and 80 percent in PAL 3. Furthermore, the following estimates are used to determine the minimum presentation length of the baggage claim unit: Design aircraft a 160-seat narrow body aircraft is chosen based on largest aircraft in the future schedule Passengers claiming bags 80 percent of passengers claim bags Recirculation rate 10 percent of bags will recirculate on the carousel Passenger claim frontage passengers occupy three feet of frontage at the baggage claim device based on ACRP Report 25 guidelines The retrieval area depth around the baggage claim belt is 10 feet to accommodate the motion of passengers retrieving suitcases from the belt 5-38 Working Paper March 2018

43 Average claim device occupancy time is 20 minutes Each passenger occupies an area of 14 square feet, consistent with IATA optimum level of service The two existing baggage claim units (allocated on a common-use basis) have approximately 133 linear feet of claim frontage each, which is sufficient for accommodating mainline narrow-body aircraft demand under both existing and future demand at the Airport, as shown in Table The minimum recommended frontage is less than that provided currently, and two baggage claim units are recommended based on airline allocation to ensure high level of customer service and access for the baggage tugs to the conveyors. Meeters and greeters also utilize space in the baggage claim area to wait for arriving passengers. Each passenger is assumed to generate 1.2 airport visitors, on average. These visitors dwell for approximately 20 minutes and occupy 13 square feet, per IATA optimum level of service for space standards. Based on IATA optimum level of service for passengers and waiting around an active claim area and meeters/greeters dwelling in the baggage claim, the 6,996 square feet of space in baggage claim is sufficient to accommodate peak hour demandarriving passengers claiming baggage. Table 5-14 Domestic Baggage Claim Base Year Existing Planning Activity Level (PAL) Activity Facilities 2016 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Baggage claim units Frontage (feet) Source: InterVISTAS, October Federal Inspection Services Federal Inspection Services (FIS) facility requirements are based on current Customs and Border Protection (CBP) design standards and expected passenger demand from the design day flight schedule. The major components of the FIS facility are: Immigration primary screening where passports are checked International baggage claim passengers from international flights retrieve their baggage Customs secondary screening where passengers go through customs screening and additional passport control CBP administrative offices and additional facilities The primary inspection facility details are summarized in Table The existing facility is equipped with four arrival passport control desks and it occupies an area of approximately 1,600 square feet. The following planning factors are assumed for determining immigration facility requirements: A 10-minute maximum queue time is desired (maximum wait time for optimum level of service) for passport control in order to meet IATA optimum level of service A 45-second processing time per passenger is assumed, which is consistent with stakeholder input regarding the time required to process one inbound flight The dimensions of the passport control booth are: 7.5 feet deep and 5.2 feet wide The corridor before and behind the desk is 3.3 feet each 5-39 Working Paper March 2018

44 Based on these planning factors, the existing immigration facility is sufficient to accommodate international arriving passengers until PAL 1. An additional international flight (assumed to be scheduled close to the existing flight) begins in PAL 2, which doubles the immigration space requirement. An additional 600 square feet of space is recommended to accommodate PAL 2 and PAL 3 international arriving passengers. As the passenger queueing area is limited, it is recommended that four passport control desks remain open by PAL 1 to ensure that arriving passengers do not queue outside the FIS facility. Three additional desks are recommended when an additional international flight arrives. There are two primary inspection booths and one X-ray lane in the current FIS facility. The following planning factors are assumed for developing customs facility requirements: The maximum queueing time at the primary inspection booth is five minutes for optimum level of service The average processing time per passenger at the primary inspection booth is five seconds The dimensions of the inspection booth are 1.9 feet deep and 3.3 feet wide Based on these wait and procession times, the existing customs facility can serve international demand beyond the PAL 3 forecast activity level, as shown in Table An additional x-ray lane is recommended beyond PAL 1. The international baggage claim area (2,252 square feet) is located in the FIS building. The following estimates are used to determine the minimum length of the international baggage claim unit: Design aircraft a 186-seat narrow body aircraft is chosen based on largest aircraft in the future schedule Passengers claiming bags 85 percent of passengers claim bags, slightly higher percentage than domestic passengers Recirculation rate 30 percent of bags will recirculate on the carousel, which is higher than the domestic rate due to arriving passengers going through immigration before claiming bags Passenger claim frontage passengers occupy three feet of frontage at the baggage claim device based on ACRP Report 25 guidelines Average claim device occupancy time all baggage is claimed or removed from the conveyor in 40 minutes The single existing baggage claim unit has approximately 100 linear feet of claim frontage, which is sufficient for accommodating international, mainline narrow-body aircraft demand through PAL 3. Table 5-15 Federal Inspection Services Requirements Base Year Existing Planning Activity Level (PAL) Activity Facilities 2016 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Immigration facility Number of arrival passport control desks Arrival passport control queue (SF.) 1, ,610 1,610 Customs Number of primary inspection booths Customs primary inspection area (SF) 1, Number of x-ray lanes X-ray lane area (SF) 1, Working Paper March 2018

45 International baggage claim Baggage claim units Frontage (linear feet) Source: InterVISTAS, October Other Requirements This section highlights other requirements at the Airport terminal including: restrooms, administrative space and public safety functions. Based on ACRP guidance, the total number of bathroom fixtures on landside and airside are adequate through PAL 3. It is recommended, however, that two small restrooms of about 200 square feet each (4 fixtures men, 3 fixtures women) be added to the baggage claim area this is because the baggage claim area is farther than the maximum ACRP recommended distance between restroom facilities in the terminal. Other requirements include administrative space at the Airport. TSA, CBP and the airlines each maintain office and administration space in the terminal. In addition to the passenger and baggage screening facilities, TSA occupies a small office space of 173 square feet. With the increase in security screening lanes by PAL 2, TSA may require a larger office to accommodate the additional screening staff. CBP occupies an office space of 2,481 square feet within FIS building the officers are already beginning to feel space constraints with smaller work areas. As such, it is anticipated the CBP will require additional space especially if more officers are hired over the planning horizon. Based on the PAL 3 ticket counter requirements, and the assumption of approximately 30 feet of airline ticket office (ATO) depth from the back wall of the ticket counter, there will be sufficient ATO space in PAL 3. There are 4,077 square feet of existing ATO space, and the PAL 3 minimum requirement is approximately 3,000 square feet. If additional airlines began serving the Airport, they would likely require a minimum of 500 square feet ATO space. Up to two additional carriers could likely be accommodated within the existing 4,077 square feet. The Airports Department does not maintain administrative space within the terminal, however they do maintain an approximate 1,300 square foot conference room which should be maintained for staff and public meetings and events. In terms of public safety functions, the central operations and security command center is located in an approximate 1,200 square feet space along one side of the ground-floor concourse. Airport staff have indicated that additional space is needed and they have considered relocating to space on the bottom floor of the twolevel concourse. Alternatively, consideration should be given to incorporating this function into an expanded Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) building which is programmed in the current CIP for the 2018/2019 timeframe Working Paper March 2018

46 5.3. Landside Facilities The landside area is an important component of any airport. It is the user s first and last experience with the Airport and a significant source of revenue. Therefore, the primary goal and objective of the landside requirements analysis is to size the landside areas to improve customer service and maximize net revenue. The following landside facilities were assessed: Terminal Curbside Terminal Parking Rental Car Facilities A surface transportation analysis is also included that assesses the existing and future conditions of the roadways and intersections serving the Airport Terminal Curbside This section summarizes terminal curbside facility requirements necessary to accommodate future demand at acceptable levels of service. For planning purposes, curbside facility requirements are intended to provide levelof-service (LOS) C or better during the design hour identified for the facility. Curbside facility requirements are based on the number of loading and/or unloading vehicles requiring accommodation during the design hour. For curbsides where vehicles park in a linear fashion, curbside requirements are typically provided in linear feet of curbside frontage parallel to a terminal building and may assume some amount of double-parking. Figure 5-13 depicts estimated peak period curbside volumes as well as the scheduled airline passengers throughout a typical day. Curbside traffic volumes are based on traffic counts conducted from March 12 through March 17, Passenger volumes are based on airline schedules for a typical busy day in As shown, traffic volumes peak four times per day and generally correspond with passenger peaks. Traffic volumes during the early morning peak (4:15 am 5:15 am) are associated with the early morning departing passengers; while volumes during the evening peak (9:00 pm to 10:00 pm) are associated with the late evening arrivals (especially Friday). The midday peak periods reflect a combination of pickup and drop-off activity, as well as employees using the curbside to access an employee parking facility. Therefore, curbside requirements are governed by the morning and evening peaks Working Paper March 2018

47 Figure 5-13 Curbside Traffic Volumes (March 2017) and Scheduled Passengers (2016) Source: Analysis by InterVISTAS, based on March 2017 traffic volume counts provided by Kimley-Horn, October Working Paper March 2018

48 Curbside drop-off volumes are approximately 250 vehicles per hour and curbside pickup volumes are approximately 245 vehicles per hour. To esimate peak month conditions, the March 2017 traffic volumes were increased by 24.3% to reflect the difference in monthly passengers in July versus March. Table 5-16 summarizes peak month curbside drop-off and pickup volumes through PAL 3. The slight reduction in afternoon peak traffic from PAL 2 to PAL 3 is due to changes in the forecast flight schedule in the later part of the day that results in the PAL 3 peak being slightly less than the PAL 2 peak, while PAL 3 does have more overall passengers throughout the day. Table 5-16 Estimated Curbside Drop-off and Pickup Volumes AM Peak (4:15 a.m. 5:15 a.m.) Midday Peak (12 p.m. 1 p.m.) PM Peak (9 p.m. 10 p.m.) 2016 Drop-off Pickup Total PAL 1 Drop-off Pickup Total PAL 2 Drop-off Pickup Total PAL 3 Drop-off Pickup Total Source: InterVISTAS, from traffic volume data provided by Kimley-Horn, October Working Paper March 2018

49 Table 5-17 summarizes the dwell times and vehicle lengths assumed for each mode. Dwell times are based on typical values suggested in ACRP Report 40 as well as values collected as part of recent dwell time surveys at other airports. It is assumed these values remain unchanged through the planning period. Table 5-17 Curbside Vehicle Dwell Times and Lengths Vehicle Type Dwell time (minutes) Passenger Passenger drop-off pickup Vehicle length (feet) Private vehicles Taxicabs / 20 (a) TNCs Courtesy vehicles (b) Schedule buses and vans (b, c) Notes: (a) 25 feet for drop-off, 20 feet for pickup; (b) vehicles pick up and drop off during a single stop; (c) includes public transit vehicles. Source: InterVISTAS, October Table 5-18 presents the assumed vehicle classification percentages for vehicles dropping off and picking up passengers on the curbsides. These shares are estimates based on on-site observations and evaluation of automatic traffic counts conducted on the outer curbside roadway. Table 5-18 Curbside Vehicle Classification Share of unscheduled vehicles using roadway Vehicle Type Drop off Pickup Private 94% 94% vehicles Taxicabs 1 2 TNCs 5 4 Total 100% 100% Source: InterVISTAS, based on on-site observations and analysis of selected traffic volume data, October Working Paper March 2018

50 In addition to the vehicles shown on Table 5-18, courtesy vans and scheduled vans and buses (such as public transit) also operate on the curbsides. During the planning period, it is possible that the mode shares shown on the table will evolve due to the continued maturation of TNCs and gradual increase in the level of vehicle automation. For planning purposes such shifts are expected to have a minimal impact on facility requirements because (a) for drop-off, all three modes have similar operating characteristics and share the same unallocated curb; and (b) for pickup, existing TNC volumes are low (estimated at 10 to 15 per hour) and would require a 10- fold increase to require additional capacity beyond the current allocated space. Table 5-19 summarizes the design hour curbside volumes by vehicle type. These volumes are based on (a) traffic counts conducted in March 2017; (b) projected future volumes shown on Table 5-16; and (c) vehicle classifications provided in Table Volumes include estimated activity for courtesy vehicles and scheduled buses and vans. Courtesy vehicle volumes reflect estimated existing activity and assume no future growth in traffic as additional traffic would likely only occur due to the introduction of a new hotel. Scheduled bus and van volumes reflect existing schedules for Fresno Area Express (Fresno-area public transit with two routes serving the Airport), V-Line (service to/from Visalia), and YARTS (service to/from Yosemite National Park) Working Paper March 2018

51 Table 5-19 Curbside Volumes Vehicle Type Private vehicles Taxicabs TNCs Courtesy vehicles (b) Schedule buses and vans (b, c) Total Notes: (a) 25 feet for drop-off, 20 feet for pickup; (b) vehicles pick up and drop off during a single stop; (c) includes public transit vehicles. Source: InterVISTAS, October Table 5-20 summarizes the curbside facility requirements for the inner and outer curbs through PAL 3. As shown, existing facilities can substantially accommodate curbside requirements through the planning period. Inner lanes Table 5-20 Terminal Curbside Requirements Required number of roadway lanes Required curbside length (LF) (if curbside requirement is met) (a) Existing 2017 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Existing 2017 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Drop-off area TNC pickup area Unallocated p/u area Total Outer lanes Base Year (2017) PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 AM peak (drop-off) PM peak (pickup) AM peak (drop-off) PM peak (pickup) Bus/shuttle area Taxicabs AM peak (drop-off) PM peak (pickup) AM peak (drop-off) PM peak (pickup) Total Note: (a) for airport curbsides, three lanes is typically the recommended minimum. Source: InterVISTAS, October Terminal Parking The methodology used to project future parking demand identified the midday occupancy during the design day and the absolute peak day. Parking demand ratios were calculated for both days and applied to future enplanement growth. Projected future parking demand was compared to the effective parking supply to estimate future parking requirements for both short- and long-term lots, as well as employee parking. Effective parking supply is the number of spaces required to ensure that parking patrons can find available parking 5-47 Working Paper March 2018

52 without a time-consuming search, and includes the amount of parking spaces available for use and a cushion to reduce search time. Not every physical space may be available for use due to improperly parked vehicles, temporary equipment storage, maintenance, etc. It was assumed that effective supply equals 95% of total supply, which results in a parking supply requirement that is 5% over demand. Figure 5-14 depicts the overnight inventory for each day from June 2016 to May Based on this information the absolute peak overnight inventory occurred on 11/24/16 with 1,872 occupied spaces. The design day occurred on 6/22/16 with 1,406 occupied spaces. Unlike the overnight inventory the Airport does not collect midday occupancy data. To estimate the percent increase in midday occupancy over the overnight inventory a physical count of occupied spaces at midday for one week was compared to the overnight inventory for the same day (Figure 5-15). Based on this survey, midday occupancy increased on average 35% over overnight inventory. Figure 5-14 Overnight Parking Inventory 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, Design Day Peak Day Source: Kimley-Horn, October Working Paper March 2018

53 Spaces Airport Master Plan Update Figure 5-15 Total Parking Occupancy Total Parking Occupancy 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1, /31/17 8/1/17 8/2/17 8/3/17 8/4/17 8/5/17 8/6/17 Overnight Inventory Midday Accumulation Source: Kimley-Horn, October The parking ratio for the design day was calculated by multiplying the design day overnight ratio by the midday average accumulation of 35%. The estimated parking occupancy of 1,900 was compared to 2016 enplanements thus determining the design day parking ratio of 2.46 occupied parking spaces / 1,000 annual enplanements. A peak day parking ratio of 2.66 spaces was also calculated. The calculated parking ratios were applied to forecast enplanements to determine future parking demand. Based on an effective total parking supply of 2,054 the existing parking system had a surplus of 154 spaces on the design day in 2016 growing to a deficit of 2,004 spaces in PAL 3. During the absolute peak day in 2016, the parking lots were at full capacity. The deficit is projected to increase to 2,331 in PAL 3. Short-term parking facilities at airports are typically designed for meeters and greeters whose length of stay is four hours or less. Spaces designated for short-term parkers are typically the most convenient parking spaces at the Airport. The maximum daily rate in a short-term lot is often double that of the long-term daily rate to discourage long-term parkers from using the lot. Short-term parking demand at airports is typically 10% to 15% of the total parking demand. Based on this assumption, the short-term parking requirements is 609 spaces by PAL 3. Currently there are 434 employee parking spaces. Based on information provided by the Airport, approximately 216 of the spaces are occupied. Employee parking growth does not typically mirror growth in enplanements as some growth in passengers can often be accommodated without a corresponding increase in employees. Employee parking demand is assumed to increase at a rate that is a combination of the growth rate for enplanements and passenger airline operations. The methodology used to estimate future employee parking requirements is based on occupancy during a typical busy period and increasing at a growth rate that is the average for enplanements and the growth rate for commercial operations Working Paper March 2018

54 Table 5-21 Parking Requirements Demand Base Year Planning Activity Level (PAL) Existing Activity Facilities 2016 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Enplanements 772,850 1,000,000 1,240,000 1,650,000 Total Parking 2,054* Design Day (90 th percentile) 1,900 2,459 3,049 4,058 Surplus / Deficit 154 (405) (995) (2,004) Absolute Peak Day 2,054 2,658 3,295 4,385 Surplus / Deficit (604) (1,241) (2,331) Short-term Parking (Design Day) 269* Surplus / Deficit (16) (100) (188) (340) Employee Parking 412* Surplus / Deficit *Note: represents effective supply or 95% of physical supply Source: Kimley-Horn, October Rental Car Facilities Rental car facilities consist of two components: (a) the ready and return area where cars are picked up and dropped off by customers; and (b) the vehicle storage area. Vehicles in the storage area are either waiting to be serviced or cleaned and then are shuttled to the ready and return car area. Space requirements are quantified for both areas. A survey of the rental car industry was conducted to determine future needs. Daily rental car transactions were used to determine the design day in the peak month. Hourly transactions for the design day were used to establish existing facility requirements. It was assumed that growth in transactions and facility requirements is directly related to enplanement growth. Based on the rental car survey it was determined that a Friday in July was the peak rental day with 730 cars rented and 578 cars returned. The survey also indicated that in the peak rental day 108 cars were rented and 45 cars were returned in the peak hour. The number of parking spaces required in a ready and return area is equal to 2.5 times the number of rentals plus the number of returns in the peak hour on the design day. Applying the formula suggests that the existing demand for ready and return spaces is 315 for a surplus of 262 spaces. Assuming the rental car industry will grow directly proportional with enplanements, the existing ready and return area should serve the industry through PAL 2 with a deficit of approximately 100 spaces in PAL 3. Typically, the amount of space required for vehicle storage is three times the ready and return car demand. The existing facility provides 584 spaces for vehicle storage. It is estimated that the current vehicle storage deficit is 361 spaces growing to 1,199 spaces by PAL 3 The current storage deficit can be satisfied in an unsecured, unpaved adjacent lot. This lot has capacity for approximately 800 parking spaces in a nose to tail configuration. With the existing unpaved lot, the vehicle storage requirements can be satisfied through PAL 2. A summary of these requirements is presented in Table Working Paper March 2018

55 Table 5-22 Rental Car Requirements Demand Existing Base Year Facilities Activity Planning Activity Level (PAL) 2016 PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 Enplanements 772,850 1,000,000 1,240,000 1,650,000 Ready / Return Spaces Surplus / Deficit (96) Vehicle Storage ,223 1,516 2,018 Surplus / Deficit (361) (404) (697) (1,199) Source: Kimley-Horn, October Surface Transportation Analysis A surface transportation analysis was performed to assess the existing and future conditions of the non-terminal roadways and intersections that serve the majority of the Airport s traffic Intersection Level of Service Capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a road segment or through an intersection within a specified period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions. Level-of-service (LOS) is used to describe the operating characteristics of a road segment or intersection in relation to capacity. LOS is defined as a qualitative measure that describes operational conditions and motorists perceptions within a traffic stream. The Transportation Research Board s (TRB s) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) defines six levelsof-service, LOS A through LOS F, with A being the best and F the worst. Intersection analyses were performed using Trafficware s Synchro 9.0 software (signalization optimization and analysis program). LOS at intersections is defined as a function of the average overall wait time for a vehicle to pass through the intersection. Table 5-23 shows the LOS criteria as defined by the HCM. Table 5-23 Intersection LOS Thresholds (delay in seconds) Signalized Intersections Un-signalized Intersections A 10 sec A 10 sec B sec B sec C sec C sec D sec D sec E sec F 80 sec E sec F 50 sec Source: Transportation Research Board s Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), LOS for signalized intersections is reported for individual movements as well as for the intersection as a whole. Some movements at an intersection may experience a low LOS, while the overall intersection may operate acceptably. A signalized intersection with LOS D or better is the desirable threshold. LOS for un-signalized 5-51 Working Paper March 2018

56 intersections, with stop control on the minor street only, is reported for the side street approach. Low and failing LOS for side street approaches are not uncommon, as vehicles may experience significant delay in turning onto a major roadway. An un-signalized intersection with LOS E or better is the desired threshold. Operating conditions were analyzed for select intersections near the Airport. Turning movement counts were collected on Wednesday, March 15th, The growth rates calculated for the future scenarios were based on passenger activity growth in the flight schedules. As shown in Table 5-24, the signalized intersection of Airways Boulevard and Clovis Avenue is currently operating below acceptable conditions during the AM peak. This intersection is projected to fail during both peaks in future PALs. Additionally, the two-way stop controlled intersection of Clinton Way and Fine Avenue is projected to experience long side-street delays under the PAL 3 conditions during the PM peak. All other study intersections are projected to operate under acceptable conditions through the planning horizon. The following intersection improvements should be considered for implementation as traffic demand increases: Airways Boulevard and Clovis Avenue -- Construct an exclusive northbound right turn lane. Construct dual left turns for the northbound left-turn movement. Construct dual left turns for the westbound left-turn movement. Clinton Way and Fine Avenue -- Construct an exclusive left-turn lane for the northbound approach. Construct an exclusive left-turn lane for the southbound approach. McKinley Avenue and Clinton Way Construct dual left turns for the southbound left-turn movement. Install right-turn overlaps on the westbound and eastbound right-turn movements. Clinton Way and Ashley Way This intersection may warrant signalization. A traffic signal warrant analysis may be performed in the future. Clinton Way and Fine Avenue This intersection may warrant signalization. A traffic signal warrant analysis may be performed in the future. Airways Boulevard and Clovis Avenue -- Install right-turn overlaps on the northbound and eastboundright turn movements. Airways Boulevard and Dakota Avenue -- Construct dual left turns for the northbound left-turn movement. Install right-turn overlaps on the southbound and eastbound-right turn movements. McKinley Avenue and Clovis Avenue Install right-turn overlaps on the eastbound and southboundright turn movements Working Paper March 2018

57 Intersectio ns Table 5-24 Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service (delay in seconds) Existing PAL 1 PAL 2 PAL 3 AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM McKinley Ave and Clinton D (36) D (39) D (38) D (41) D (40) D (45) D (50) E (71) Way Clinton Way and Parking A (2) A (4) A (2) A (4) A (2) A (5) A (4) A (7) Exit Clinton Way and Gateway A (10) C (23) B (11) C (23) B (11) C (32) B (14) D (46) Blvd. Clinton Way and Ashley B (14B) B (14) C (16) B (14) C (19) C (18) D (28) E (39) Way* Clinton Way and Fine C (18) C (17) C (24) C (18) D (31) F (61) F (59) F (142) Avenue* Airways Blvd and F (82) D (46) F (175) D (51) F (254) F (166) F (408) F (295) Clovis Ave. Airways Blvd. and Dakota D (38) D (38) D (43) D (39) D (52) E (60) F (100) F (120) Ave. McKinley Ave. and B (14) B (17) B (17) B (18) C (24) C (28) F (90) F (94) Clovis Ave. Notes: Results shown are from HCM 2000 report due to incompatibility between the intersection s geometry/phasing and HCM 2010 methodology. LOS not provided for two-way stop-controlled intersections. Red text indicates undesirable LOS. Source: Kimley-Horn, October It should be noted that these suggested improvements are based on a planning-level analysis, thus, a separate, detailed traffic study should be completed to develop a comprehensive solution that improves the capacity of the roadway network Working Paper March 2018

58 Non-Terminal Roadway Level of Service The primary non-terminal roadways surrounding the airport are projected to operate under acceptable conditions throughout the planning horizon as summarized in Table Table 5-25 Non-Terminal Roadway Segment Analysis Results Airport Entrance e/o Clinton Way Unsignalized Segments Signalized Segments Parking Lot Rd bef. Exit to E Clinton Way Clinton Way w/o McKinley Ave Clinton Way w/o Fine Ave (b) 40 (b) 50 (a) Airways Blvd w/o Clovis Ave ACRP Free Flow Speed Segment 3,030(c) 2,020 (c) 2,740 (d) 2,740 3,220 (d) Capacity/Hr. (d) Peak Hour 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:30 PM 4:30 PM Existing Conditions Peak Hour Volume ,266 V/C Ratio N/A N/A N/A Peak Hour LOS A A C or C or C or better better better Daily Volume* 3,348 2,556 10,176 8,485 13,297 PAL 1 Peak Hour Volume ,410 V/C Ratio N/A N/A N/A Peak Hour LOS A A C or better C or better C or better Daily Volume* 3,945 3,002 11,995 10,054 15,662 PAL 2 Peak Hour Volume ,162 1,000 1,653 V/C Ratio N/A N/A N/A Peak Hour LOS A A C or C or C or better better better Daily Volume* 4,424 3,361 13,519 11,424 17,660 PAL 3 Peak Hour Volume ,480 1,223 2,061 V/C Ratio N/A N/A N/A Peak Hour LOS A A D C or C or better better Daily Volume* 5,462 4,185 16,850 14,241 22,110 Notes: Daily Volume is presented as reference only; it was not used to obtain the LOS; (a) Class I (40 mph or higher posted speed limit) capacities from the FDOT table will be used given the airport roadway characteristics on the analyzed segment; (b) Class II (35 mph or slower posted speed limit) capacities from the FDOT table will be used given the airport roadway characteristics on the analyzed segments; (c) Segment capacities calculated from the ACRP guidelines; (d) segment capacity from FDOT table, 10% capacity reduction applied given its non-state signalized roadway classification. Source: Kimley-Horn, October Working Paper March 2018

59 Figure 5-16 illustrates the peak hour demands and LOS for the study non-terminal segments and intersections surrounding the Airport in PAL 3. Figure 5-16 PAL 3 Peak Hour Demand Roadway LOS Source: Kimley-Horn, September Working Paper March 2018

60 5.4. General Aviation General Aviation (GA) includes all civilian operations that are not scheduled commercial flights. GA activity can include recreational and personal flying, business and corporate aviation, agricultural spraying, and emergency response and public safety services. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the capacity of the existing GA facilities and their ability to meet forecast levels of demand during the planning period. The following facilities were evaluated: Aircraft Storage (Tiedowns, Hangars, and Aprons) Fixed Based Operators Aircraft Maintenance Other Tenants Aircraft Storage Aircraft can be stored on an apron in a parking or tie-down position, under a shadeport, in a T-hangar, or in a larger shared/conventional hangar. Indoor hangar storage is typically desired within the California Central Valley due to the sun exposure and heat. Hangar requirements are based on the number of based and transient aircraft, type and relative value of the aircraft, owner preferences, storage costs, and space availability. Based aircraft storage requirements were developed using the baseline forecast of based aircraft and the assumptions presented in Table The listed per-aircraft footprints include area that would be necessary for maneuvering aircraft to and from the storage areas (i.e. taxilanes and obstacle free areas). For the based aircraft storage calculations, the 24 CANG based aircraft were not included as they are located on their own apron and have their own storage needs that are not analyzed as part of this study. Additionally, it is assumed 50 percent of the Signature apron, 80 percent of the Ross apron, and Rogers Helicopters and Air Methods aprons are available for based aircraft. Table 5-26 Based Aircraft Storage Assumptions Aircraft Type Footprint (SF) Desired Storage Type Percentage Single-Engine 7,900 Apron 30% 2,000 T-hangar 65% 1,340 Shared Conventional Hangar 5% Multi-Engine 7,900 Apron 10% 2,500 T-hangar 60% 2,000 Shared Conventional Hangar 30% Turboprop / Jet (small) 21,950 Apron 5% 3,000 Shared Conventional Hangar 95% Turboprop / Jet (large) 26,450 Apron 0% 6,000 Shared Conventional Hangar 100% Helicopter 1,250 Apron 15% 750 Conventional Hangar 85% Source: Kimley-Horn, October Transient aircraft storage needs were determined based on the baseline forecast design day itinerant operations, an assessment of the number of itinerant aircraft on the ground at any one time, the projected 5-56 Working Paper March 2018

61 percentage of pilots that would desire access to overnight storage, and the overall footprint of the aircraft types. Table 5-7 provides the assumptions utilized for transient aircraft, including maneuvering areas for aircraft. It is assumed 50 percent of the Signature apron and 20 percent of the Ross apron are available for transient aircraft. This analysis does not include the previous Marine Corps apron, that is used for the occasional large transient charter and military aircraft. Table 5-27 Transient Aircraft Storage Planning Assumption Aircraft Type Single-Engine 25% Multi-Engine 25% Turboprop / Jet (small) 40% Turboprop / Jet (large) 40% Helicopter 40% Source: Kimley-Horn, October Overnight Stay Footprint (SF) Desired Storage Type Percentage 7,900 Apron 70% 2,000 T-hangar 0% 1,340 Shared Conventional Hangar 30% 7,900 Apron 30% 2,500 T-hangar 0% 2,000 Shared Conventional Hangar 70% 21,950 Apron 25% 3,000 Shared Conventional Hangar 75% 26,450 Apron 20% 6,000 Shared Conventional Hangar 80% 1,250 Apron 20% 750 Conventional Hangar 80% Based on the preceding assumptions, Table 5-28 displays the deficit and surplus of the storage needs by type for based and transient aircraft based on the planning assumptions. The USFS/CalFire, California Highway Patrol, and maintenance facilities were not utilized as available storage space. Throughout the planning period, there is a small surplus of T-hangars, a large shortage of conventional hangar space, and surplus apron space. The shared conventional hangar deficit is currently handled by parking aircraft on the apron that would prefer to be stored in a hangar. Existing tenants have suggested the need for additional conventional hangar space as they currently park large jets outside on the apron Working Paper March 2018

62 Table 5-28 Aircraft Storage Requirements Based Aircraft Transient Aircraft Total T-hangar Shared Apron Shared Apron T-hangar Shared Apron Available 161,840 79, ,350 41, , , , , Need 155, , ,000 51,000 98, , , ,000 Deficit/Surp 7,000 (66,000) 411,000 (9,000) 134,000 7,000 (75,000) 545,000 lus 2021 Need 155, , ,000 51, , , , ,000 Deficit/Surp 7,000 (75,000) 411,000 (9,000) 132,000 7,000 (85,000) 543,000 lus 2026 Need 155, , ,000 54, , , , ,000 Deficit/Surp 7,000 (94,000) 411,000 (12,000) 129,000 7,000 (106,000) 540,000 lus 2036 Need 155, , ,000 56, , , , ,000 Deficit/Surp 7,000 (123,000) 410,000 (14,000) 125,000 7,000 (137,000) 534,000 lus Source: Kimley-Horn, October Fixed Base Operators The Airport is currently served by two FBOs, Signature Flight Support and Ross Aviation. Both FBOs cater to private, corporate, charter and transient military aircraft. Each of their GA terminals provide pilot amenities such as flight planning stations, Wi-Fi, crew cars, crew lounges with sleeping quarters, and televisions. Passenger amenities and services include snack food and coffee, catering, Wi-Fi, hotel booking, rental cars, passenger lounge, conference rooms, and baggage handling. The FBOs also provide aircraft storage, maintenance, and ground handling services such as lavatory and water servicing and ground power units. Beyond the conventional hangar deficit noted previously, the services provided by the FBOs are sufficient for the planning horizon. Signature s terminal is contained in a 7,600 square foot building attached to its main conventional hangar and Ross Aviation is located in a 3,800 square foot building. This terminal space is considered sufficient for the planning horizon based on industry guidance and discussions with the FBOs. Ross Aviation has 36 vehicle parking spaces available for employees and visitors located adjacent to its terminal building. Signature has 31 parking spaces provided for visitors at the front of the building and 31 spaces for employees provided along the terminal and adjacent hangar. Visual observations of vehicles parked on the street due to lack of parking spaces suggests that additional vehicle parking is needed to accommodate FBO visitors and employees Aircraft Maintenance Maintenance for GA aircraft is primarily provided by Signature TECHNICair in a 44,000 square foot hangar and by APR Aviation in a 16,550 square foot hangar leased from Ross Aviation. Additionally, aircraft maintenance training is performed by San Joaquin Valley College in a 14,000 square foot hangar leased from Ross Aviation Working Paper March 2018

63 There have been no indications by Airport staff or tenants that additional maintenance hangar space will be needed over the planning period. TECHNICair has 31 vehicle parking spaces provided for visitors at the front of the building and 47 spaces along the maintenance hangar and the edge of the apron for a total of 78 spaces. The number of vehicle parking spaces for TECHNICair is considered adequate for the planning horizon. It should be noted, if the TECHNICair apron were extended to the north these vehicle parking spaces would need to be relocated. San Joaquin Valley College utilizes a shared parking lot with office buildings that provide 134 spaces. Per City of Fresno Development Code, which requires one space per 400 square feet of office space, this lot is sufficient for the planning horizon Other Tenants Other GA tenants at the Airport include the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) on the east side of the airfield. Based on discussions with the USFS, the 12-acre lease that contains office, vehicle parking, flame retardant warehouse, and apron and hangar space is considered adequate for the planning horizon. If additional hangar or shadeport space is desired, there is space on the apron to accommodate additional storage facilities. While the vehicle entrance to the apron is strategically barricaded for national defense, it makes entry by trucks difficult. As this entrance is used by USFS only, it is recommended that the USFS reconfigure the vehicle entrance based on their needs. Additionally, the pavement is noted as being in satisfactory to fair condition and will be in need of rehabilitation within the next several years. The 1.2-acre CHP facility contains office space, vehicle parking, and hangar and apron space for fixed-wing and rotorcraft. According to CHP staff the existing facility is too small and poorly configured for their operational needs. Larger hangars and additional apron space is desired, especially if the CHP changes to Cessna Caravan aircraft which are larger than their current aircraft. The CHP would also like a facility with fuel storage, a washrack and additional storage. Expanded or relocated facilities are recommended for the CHP. Additionally, the Fresno County Sheriff department, currently located on the GA Apron, has expressed an interest in relocating to the current CHP facility or collaborating with the CHP on developing a joint facility Air Cargo The majority of cargo activity at the Airport is performed by FedEx and UPS. In 2016, these two carriers handled 99.6 percent of bi-directional tonnage traffic at the Airport. Mainline passenger aircraft also provide cargo services through their belly capacity but mostly U.S. mail and small packages. FedEx and UPS both utilize the Boeing F. This is an ADG-IV aircraft and it is anticipated that both cargo carriers will continue to operate this aircraft over the planning horizon. Anecdotally, FedEx indicated that the Airbus A300 (also an ADG-IV aircraft) could be used at times as a backup aircraft. The cargo apron, which was developed in 2005, is approximately 820,000 square feet and includes eight parking spaces and a central taxilane designed to accommodate ADG-IV aircraft. Currently, each carrier maintains two parking positions but typically only park one aircraft on the apron at a time. Occasional maintenance issues or staging flights might result in multiple aircraft on the apron simultaneously. As described in Chapter 4, cargo tonnage is anticipated to increase at an average compound rate of 1.7 percent annually. FedEx has indicated their aircraft are not typically at full capacity, therefore it is not anticipated the forecast growth will translate into a need for additional apron space over the planning horizon. However, should apron demand increase, 5-59 Working Paper March 2018

64 either through additional flights or additional carriers, there are 4 additional parking spaces available. Based on this, the current apron layout and geometry are considered adequate for the planning horizon. In terms of fleet trends, both FedEx and UPS have made recent investments in the Boeing F. These aircraft are also ADG-IV and can be easily accommodated on the current apron. However, UPS has been acquiring Boeing F aircraft (ADG-VI). Should the need arise for additional apron space and cargo facilities, it is recommended that the land adjacent to the existing cargo complex be preserved and/or prioritized for future cargo development Support Facilities This section will provide an overview of the physical and operational requirements for Airport support facilities along with the requisite recommendation to meet future requirements. Support facilities include the following Aviation Fueling Airport Traffic Control Tower Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Airport Maintenance Utilities Ground Service Equipment Aviation Fueling The two FBOs each provide 100LL and Jet-A fuel service to commercial, general aviation, and transient military aircraft. Both FBOs maintain their own above-ground fuel storage system and aircraft fueling is conducted via fuel trucks direct to the aircraft. Including the fuel truck volume, total existing storage capacity is approximately 25,000 gallons of 100LL and 144,000 gallons of Jet-A. Of this, approximately 90 percent is considered available for use as 10 percent of the physical capacity is typically unusable due to testing and sump volume. According to the FBOs, 94 percent of fuel sales is for JetA, and 99.5 percent is purchased by airline tenants. The FBOs further indicate that they receive almost daily fuel deliveries to replenish their JetA supply. The CANG maintains their own fueling systems to service their based aircraft. ACRP and International Air Transport Association, Guidance on Airport Fuel Storage Capacity guidance suggests that commercial service airports should maintain a 3 to 10-day fuel reserve to sustain efficient operations and to account for fluctuations in aircraft activity, maintenance, and supply interruptions. Since the FBOs are receiving almost daily shipments, consideration should be given to providing additional fuel storage capacity. Though not currently being used, there is also an underground fuel storage system that has capacity for 20,000 gallons of 100LL. The system requires inspection, repair and re-permitting prior to use. Pending further evaluation, this could be a viable option for increasing reserve fuel capacity Airport Traffic Control Tower The airport traffic control tower (ATCT) is located northwest of the passenger terminal, adjacent to the ARFF building. It is owned by the City and leased by the FAA. The facility is on a 2.25-acre parcel and includes the tower and administration building, and 48 parking stalls dedicated for FAA personnel. The tower is 80 feet tall to the cab floor Working Paper March 2018

65 FAA and airport personnel have indicated that the facility which was commissioned in 1961 is outdated and in need of upgrades (such as elevators). Additionally, the parking lot is not fenced. FAA personnel anticipate consolidating with Bakersfield Radar, which would result in additional employees at the facility. The FAA has indicated that up to $10M in improvements are required. Should adequate federal funds become available, the ATCT facility may warrant remodel and/or enhancement. Despite its age and condition, the ATCT is in a satisfactory location for both visibility and operational requirements. In 2010, the FAA conducted a study to evaluate the potential for relocating the ATCT. Thirteen potential sites were evaluated. The preferred sites identified in that study included two within the parking lot of the existing facility and two on the opposite side of the airfield. The siting study, however, was not finished due to potential facility development costs. Based on age and condition, it is recommended that land use planning take into consideration the potential for relocation of the ATCT Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Commercial service airports with Operating Certificates under 14 CFR Part 139, Certification of Airports are required to provide ARFF services. The analysis of ARFF facility needs takes into account FAA guidance from both Part 139 and AC 150/ A, Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Station Building Design. Per FAA guidance, an ARFF index is based on the largest air carrier aircraft that performs an average of five daily departures. The ARFF index dictates the equipment and extinguishing agents required for an airport. In 2016, the largest aircraft with an average of at least five daily departures at the Airport was the Bombardier CRJ-900, which translates into an ARFF Index of B. Based on forecast activity levels and fleet mix, and the PAL 3 gated flight schedule provided in Section 5.2, the ARFF index is not anticipated to change over the planning horizon. In addition to the CRJ-900, the Airbus 319/320 and Boeing are also Index B aircraft. Should larger aircraft, such as the CRJ-1000, Airbus 321, or Boeing increase operations and meet the threshold of five daily departures, a change from ARFF index B to C would be required. At that time, additional requirements for equipment and extinguishing agents would take effect. Currently, the vehicles and extinguishing agents at the ARFF more than meet the requirements for both ARFF Index B and C. Airport and ARFF personnel have indicated that the current ARFF building does not meet their operational needs for either personnel or equipment. A replacement ARFF building is included in the Airport s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to be designed in 2019 and constructed in Based on FAA guidance and a comparison of peer airport ARFF facilities, a replacement ARFF facility should be approximately twice as large as the current facility with at least four warehouse bays for vehicle storage, and additional administrative space and crew quarters. Additional employee parking is also desired. An approximate half-acre site would be needed to develop this facility which could likely be accommodated on the current site or possibly an alternative location Airport Maintenance The Airports Department maintains a 28,000 square-foot airport maintenance warehouse and office facility northeast of the administration building along Anderson Avenue. The warehouse has an outdoor storage yard of approximately 30,000 square feet and forty-six automobile parking spaces. An additional 4,000 square foot maintenance building, with airside access, is located immediately adjacent to the ARFF and ATCT facilities. This building houses equipment for airfield maintenance and includes three service bays and six parking spaces. Airport staff are do not anticipate a need for additional airport maintenance facilities during the planning horizon Working Paper March 2018

66 Utilities Utility systems at the Airport include water, electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications services. A review of the information has identified an inadequacy in the electrical and water utilities that currently serve the Airport. PG&E the local utilities company has indicated that the substation serving the Airport is currently at capacity. If further development is to occur at the Airport over the planning horizon, it is anticipated that the electrical supply system would need to be upgraded. The CANG recently noted the same observation in their Installation Development Plan (Ponds & Company 2017, 27) which further indicates water pressure at the installation is insufficient and affects the fire suppression system to their buildings. As such, it is recommended that additional evaluations be performed to confirm the extent to which the water and electrical utilities require upgrading Airline Aircraft Maintenance Commercial airline maintenance facilities at the Airport include an approximate 17-acre site for Skywest on the northeast of the airfield, for which Skywest recently signed a new 10-year lease with the City. Skywest currently operates and maintains the Bombardier CRJ-700/900 and Embraer ERJ-175 aircraft for multiple airlines serving the Airport. The facilities include a WWII-era hangar that is in need of modernization. In 2017, Skywest began investing in improvements to the hangar and have indicated that more maintenance facilities will be needed to accommodate the increase in aircraft size Ground Service Equipment Storage All ground service equipment (GSE) is owned, operated and maintained by the individual airlines. GSE is generally stored in three areas of the commercial apron as identified in Figure These areas encompass approximately 30,900 square feet. There are 12 electric charging stations provided on the apron. Four to the west of the terminal were installed in 2017; eight to the east of the terminal were installed in This was done to support air quality improvements in anticipation of the conversation from diesel to electric power. Airline and Airport staff indicate that the existing apron meets the current GSE storage needs. However, it is recommended that an additional, dedicated GSE storage space be considered in the future to accommodate additional flights or additional carriers. There is an undeveloped site adjacent to the new employee parking lot that could be considered for that use. Keeping the equipment near the gates is desired for operational efficiency and should be appraised for any future expansion of the terminal building Working Paper March 2018

67 Figure 5-17 Airline GSE Storage Areas Source: Kimley-Horn, November Working Paper March 2018