EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Master Plan Update Phase 2/3 FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 1. INTRODUCTION 2.

Transcription

1

2 MASTER PLAN UPDATE Phase 2/3 Draft Final Summary Report Report Issued 2010 in association with Prepared for Broward County Aviation Department Main Office 555 Airport Blvd., Suite 300 Burlingame, CA Tel Fax Fort Lauderdale Office Fort Lauderdale Jet Center 1100 Lee Wagener Boulevard, Suite 309 Fort Lauderdale, Florida Tel Fax MEA Group, Inc. Washington, D.C. Office Conference Center Drive, Suite 275 Chantilly, VA Tel Fax London, UK Office 16 Connaught Place London, W2 2ES, UK Tel +44 (0) Fax +44 (0)

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4 ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides a summary of the analysis and findings from Phase 2/3 of the Master Plan Update for Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (the Airport or FLL). A companion Technical Appendices volume provides supplementary data and analyses that support the material presented in this summary report, including the summary and findings of Phase 1. This summary report is organized in eight sections, as follows: Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Forecast Summary Section 3 Accommodating the Forecast Section 4 Financial Considerations Section 5 Airfield Development, Land Use Issues, and Opportunities Section 6 Terminal Area Development Options Section 7 Support Facilities and General Aviation Section 8 Phase 2 Conclusions The Master Plan Update was effectively completed in January Production of this final report was delayed until 2009 as requested by the Broward County Aviation Department (BCAD) to coordinate with the final issuance of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to allow for final minor adjustments. Consequently, the data represented in this report is from prior to 2008, and does not represent changes since that period. A number of tasks have been initiated by the BCAD through General Consulting Contracts which build upon this Master Plan Update, and are based on more current data. Through the course of this planning effort it was also identified that more frequent updates of the Master Plan should occur to keep up with the ever-changing business environment and technology at FLL. Therefore it is recommended that review and update of the Master Plan should occur every two to three years in an evolving planning process that matches the requirements and challenges of the Airport. The principal findings from Phase 2 are summarized below, organized in relation to the eight sections of this summary report. 1. INTRODUCTION Basis for the Master Plan Update The Master Plan Update process was initiated in response to a motion approved by the Broward County Board of County Commissioners (the Board) on December 9, 2003; actions taken by the Board in 2004 to amend Leigh Fisher Associates contract with the County; and a Notice to Proceed issued by Broward County Aviation Department staff in November Master Plan Update Objective The objective of the Master Plan Update was to provide a comprehensive plan to guide and coordinate the development of Terminal Area Airport facilities through As the schedule for the Master Plan Update was modified and extended due to the change in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process and schedule, additional planning beyond the originally specified 2020 timeframe were addressed as referenced in this report. It is also intended that the Master Plan Update should serve to inform short-term development decisions by identifying the relationship between short-term decisions and longer-term options affecting the future potential of the Airport to serve the Broward County region. Two-Phase Process The County structured the Master Plan Update in two separate phases. Phase 1 consists of preparing optional development scenarios for consideration by the Board and for review by Airport stakeholders in Phase 2. In developing the optional scenarios, key factors such as the demand for air travel at FLL, affordability, other County policies, concerns about managed growth, and noise mitigation and environmental issues were to be given balanced consideration. Phase 2 consists of refining the options based on stakeholder input, assisting the Board in decision-making regarding a preferred option, and beginning the implementation process. Phase 2 also included coordination of stakeholder outreach with the Broward County Aviation Department, and the other ongoing efforts including the EIS process and the Part 150 Study. A Phase 3 was initiated to address schedule, forecast and programmatic changes resulting from the evolution of the EIS process. This phase was effectively the continuation of Phase 2 and is acknowledged as such for the purpose of this document. Givens for the Master Plan Update Certain items were defined in the scope of work for the Phase 1 Master Plan Update process as givens and were, therefore, not subject to further review or analysis in the Master Plan Update. These givens were revised after the initiation of Phase 2, and subsequent adjustments were made in the resultant planning process and final recommendations. These givens and associated revised givens included: Forecast Demand The scope of work for the Master Plan Update stipulated that the FAA s Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) issued in January 2005 be used as the basis for estimating facility requirements. No separate forecasts were developed or used in the Master Plan Update process. During Phase 2, the FAA issued revised Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF s) that significantly impacted the demand model for planning purposes. The 2007 FAA TAF issued in January 2008 became the final forecast for revised planning assumptions. Facilities Concourse A and Cruise Bus Facility, the international terminal facilities at the Terminal 4 site, and double-decking of the Airport exit roadway were all assumed as givens for the Master Plan Update. During Phase 2, changes in the TAF, as well as the evolution of airport development strategy by the Broward County Aviation Administration resulted in elimination of all of the Facilities givens as outlined above. The final planning recommendations did not assume any of these initial givens in the final proposal. EIS Alternatives Recognizing the simultaneous schedule of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed South Runway Extension, the Master Plan Update is required to adapt to the proposed airfield development alternatives subject to consideration in the EIS process. While the Sponsor s Preferred Alternative, or B1c, was defined as the given runway configuration for the Master Plan Update, the final EIS Record of Decision (ROD) resulted in the designation of the B1b runway configuration. For planning purposes, however, the physical configuration of the B1c and B1b alternatives are identical, and therefore this change did not impact the final Master Plan Update recommendations. Port-Airport Integration In evaluating development options in the Master Plan Update, it was assumed that a corridor will be preserved for potential construction of a people mover linking Port Everglades with the Airport. Regional Transit Integration Planned development at the Airport will accommodate potential connections to future regional transit infrastructure development. Sustainable Development Planned development at the Airport shall be based on principles of sustainable design. These principles are based on the maintenance of the viability of the Airport s tangible assets, responsible stewardship of the Airport s environmental assets and the use of natural resources for development, and the promotion of practices that support social and cultural development. 2. FORECAST SUMMARY Base Forecast As required in the scope of work for the Master Plan Update, FAA TAF was used as the base forecast for the planning effort. As indicated above, the 2007 FAA TAF was used for the final revisions to the Master Plan Update recommendations. Enplaned Passengers Based on the 2007 FAA TAF, enplaned passengers at FLL are forecast to increase an average of 2.9% per year through 2025 somewhat less than the actual long-term historical growth rate of 4.9% per year. Aircraft Operations Based on the 2007 FAA TAF, aircraft operations at FLL are forecast to increase an average of 2.3% per year through Share of Regional Traffic Regional traffic is defined as FLL, Miami International Airport, and Palm Beach International Airport. Based on the FAA TAF, FLL s share of regional domestic originating passengers accommodated at FLL is forecast to increase from 54% in 2005 to 60% in FLL s share of regional international traffic is forecast to increase gradually through ACCOMMODATING THE FORECAST Planning Horizon In line with the October 2004 County Objective Statement, and as modified by subsequent schedule revisions, the year 2025 was selected as the horizon for defining long-term facility needs at FLL for Phase 2. Airfield Development Requirements Various analyses have indicated that the airfield alternatives under consideration in the South Runway Extension EIS would provide adequate airfield capacity to accommodate traffic forecast through the planning horizon. This result is endorsed in ES-1

5 the FAA s preliminary Purpose and Need statement for the EIS. In this context, airfield capacity requirements have not been independently analyzed in the Master Plan Update. Planning efforts instead are focused on ensuring that other planning initiatives are compatible with the airfield requirements under consideration as part of the South Runway Extension EIS process. Aircraft Gate Requirements There are 57 total existing aircraft gates. Based on the goal that the Airport will eventually accommodate seven passenger airline aircraft departures per gate per day (up from approximately five in 2005), which is consistent with gate utilization at many large-hub airports, a total of aircraft gates is estimated to satisfy the demand through 2025 (up from the current total of 57 gates). Passenger Vehicle Parking Requirements It is assumed that a ratio of 175 to 200 terminal area vehicle parking spaces per aircraft gate is needed. This is consistent with the historical ratio provided at FLL with reduced customer inconvenience. It is assumed that approximately 6,000 additional parking spaces would be required within the terminal area to accommodate demand by 2025 for a total of approximately 18,000 spaces. Terminal Roadway Requirements Analyses of roadway and curbside requirements indicate that operational improvements to the roadway system should be evaluated and implemented in the near term, and physical improvements to roadways and curbsides in the vicinity of Terminals 2, 3 and 4 will be required by FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Total Financing Capacity Analyses conducted as part of Phase 2/3 of the Master Plan Update indicate that the County has the capacity to fund anticipated airfield, terminal, landside, and ancillary facility needs at FLL through 2025, while maintaining a competitive cost structure and competitive airline rates. However, between now and 2025, the County will need to decide which development path to take Additive or Redevelopment as well as make important decisions about project phasing, airline leasing policies, and the scale of projects to be undertaken in order to maintain affordability for Airport users throughout the period and beyond. Funding of Other Projects The County has a multiyear capital improvement program (CIP) that was taken into consideration as part of the Master Plan Update. Projects included in the existing CIP, in particular the South Runway Extension, will increase airline costs from the low end of cost per enplaned passenger (CPE) of the national range toward the mid range CPE for large hub airports such as FLL. Airline Cost Range for Airport Development Options The extent of the Airport s financing capacity will depend on the target the County selects for airline costs per enplaned passenger and the airlines ability and willingness to pay. As part of the Master Plan Update process, the airlines were consulted on the scope, timing, and magnitude of capital improvements as well as their willingness to share facilities to minimize terminal expansion. In the context of currently constrained facilities and high demand for access and facilities, the airlines acknowledged their costs would need to increase at FLL to deliver needed facilities that will allow them to increase service and to improve passenger levels of service. Managing Future Airline Costs To minimize future user costs, the Airport development strategy needs to (1) be flexible enough to enable incremental development of facilities in response to demand, (2) maximize utilization of existing facilities through common use systems and nonexclusive leasing procedures, (3) minimize debt costs through the utilization of commercial paper and by negotiating airline agreements that permit access to less expensive debt (i.e., governmental purpose bonds for the South Runway), (4) aggressively lobby to secure federal and state grants for the CIP, (5) maximize PFC revenues, (6) maximize nonairline revenues, (7) maintain existing infrastructure through proactive renewal and replacement to avoid higher costs from deferral of such investments, (8) avoid high-cost capital projects that deliver marginal net capacity, (9) recognize that most new projects cannot be developed on green field sites and are, therefore, more likely to be relatively expensive, and (10) minimize the extent to which projects require large front-loaded investment that depends on subsequent traffic growth to make financial sense. Mitigating Factors A number of factors could materially and positively affect new capital project affordability above the baseline forecast, including, among other things, the potential for exceeding or underachieving forecast traffic levels, a potential increase in the authorized PFC rate, the potential for higher grant participation levels, increases or decreases in construction escalation in relation to general inflation, and the willingness of users to bear the costs associated with new and expanded facilities. Specific Financial Plans Specific financial plans for the recommended development option considered in the Master Plan Update are presented in Section 4 of this report. 5. AIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT, LAND USE ISSUES, and OPPORTUNITIES Proposed South Runway Extension EIS Drives Future Airfield Configuration Recognizing the simultaneous completion of the EIS for the Proposed South Runway Extension, the Master Plan Update remained flexible to airfield development alternatives subject to consideration as part of the FAA s EIS process. At the completion of the Master Plan Update, Alternative B1c (and ultimately B1b) was assumed as the final airfield configuration. Both the B1c and B1b alternatives represent the same physical configuration with differing operational parameters. Runway Alternatives In the motion adopted by the Board on December 9, 2003, the extension of Runway 9R- 27L was designated as the County s Preferred Alternative for future airfield development. In January 2006, the FAA identified two additional South Runway alternatives, which involve shifting the centerline of the South Runway to the north or to the south of its current location. The Master Plan Update alternatives maximized compatibility with all of these alternatives. The Master Plan Update recommended alternative was finalized based on the County s Preferred Alternate, or B1c. The alternatives considered are described below: EIS Runway Alternatives There were 18 runway alternatives originally identified by the EIS for evaluation. Alternative A was the no-action alternative. Ther runway alternatives were classified in the following families. The B alternatives were south airfield development alternatives. The C alternatives included north airfield development. The D alternatives involved a combination of north and south airfield development. Through the evaluation of the EIS process and determination of fatal flaws and constructability among the evaluation variables, the following alternatives made the final round of analysis. Below is a description of each alternative and its impact on the terminal area. EIS Alternative A No-action FAA Order B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Projects requires that the effects of a no-action alternative must be disclosed in the EIS along with the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and its reasonable alternatives. For this EIS, the No-action Alternative presumes no runway or other major airfield improvements or development projects would occur, and Runway 9R/27L would remain at its existing length of 5,276 feet by 100 feet wide. B Alternatives South Airfield Development EIS Alternative B1: Alternative B1 includes the redevelopment and extension of the existing alignment of Runway 9R/27L to the east, to a total length of 8,600 feet by 150 feet wide without encroaching onto NE 7th Avenue. This alternative maximizes the overall runway length by extending and elevation it to the east over the FEC Railway and U.S. Highway1. The western extent of the runway would be the Dania Cut-off Canal. Due to the increased elevation of Runway 9R/27L at its intersection with Runway 13/31, Runway 13/31 would be closed permanently. Alternative B1 reflects the original configuration of the Airport Sponsor s Proposed Project based on information received from Broward County on November The taxiways and retaining walls associated with this alternative would impose some limitation on terminal and apron development in the vicinity of existing Terminal 4. EIS Alternative B1b: Under Alternative B1b, Runway 9R/27L would have the same physical alignments as Alternative B1. However, the overall length of Runway 9R/27L would be reduced to allow for the installation of an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS). Runway 9R/27L would have an overall length of 8,000 feet and width of 150 feet to achieve full compliance with the runway safety area (RSA) design criteria. This avoids having a portion of the RSA for Runway 9R/27L in the Dania Cut-off Canal. The runway extension would be to the east without encroaching onto NE 7th Avenue and it would be elevated over the FEC Railway and U.S. Highway 1. The western extent of the runway would be the Dania Cut-off Canal. Due to the increased elevation of Runway 9R/27L at its intersection with Runway 13/31, Runway 13/31 would be permanently closed. Alternative B1b includes the use of EMAS on each end of the runway. Alternative B1b is based on informa- ES-2

6 tion received from Broward County in December The taxiways and retaining walls associated with this alternative would impose some limitation on terminal and apron development in the vicinity of existing Terminal 4. EIS Alternative B1c Sponsors proposed Runway Alternative: Alternative B1c has the same physical alignment, design conditions, and configuration as Alternative B1b. However, Alternative B1c considers the implementation of the operational noise abatement actions described in the County s Airfield Development Program Objective Statement (October 26, 2004). Broward County provided the operational assumptions to the FAA in August 2006 based on the County Objective Statement. The taxiways and retaining walls associated with this alternative would impose some limitation on terminal and apron development in the vicinity of existing Terminal 4. EIS Alternative B4: Alternative B4 includes shifting the alignment of Runway 9R/27L 340 feet to the north, and construction of a new 6,001 foot runway using the Dania Cut-off Canal as the western limit for development. The new alignment of Runway 9R/27L would require the reconfiguration of Terminal 4. Unlike Alternative B1, Runway 9R/27L would not extend over the FEC Railway or U.S. Highway 1. To meet standard FAA requirements established for RSA s, Alternative B4 would utilize EMAS on both runway ends. Airport Perimeter Road, U.S. Highway 1, and the FEC Railway are shifted to the east to achieve the 6,001 foot minimum runway length. Alternative B4 avoids decommissioning Runway 13/31. This alternative keeps the runway redevelopment largely within the existing Airport boundary. This alternative would significantly reduce the area available for terminal development in the vicinity of existing Terminal 4, and would similarly constrain the availability of land for aviation-related development on the West Side of the Airport. Further, this alternative would likely require the continued availability of the Crosswind Runway for air carrier operations, which would further limit terminal development opportunities to the west of Terminal 3. EIS Alternative B5: Under Alternative B5, the alignment of Runway9R/27L would be shifted 300 feet to the south and a new 7,800 foot runway would be constructed without encroaching upon NE 7th Avenue. This new runway would be elevated over the FEC Railway and U.S. Highway 1 while the Dania Cut-off Canal would be the western limit for development. Alternative B5 uses EMAS on both runway ends. Runway 13/31 would be decommissioned. The intersection of Griffin Road and U.S. Highway 1 would be relocated approximately 950 feet south of its existing location to accommodate the Runway 9R/27L redevelopment as noted. This alternative would add some land area that would be available for terminal development in the vicinity of existing Terminal 4, but would preclude potential development on the South Side of the Airport. Decommissioning of the Crosswind Runway As stipulated in the Board s December 9, 2003, motion cited above, the Crosswind Runway (Runway 13-31) was evaluated as part of the Master Plan Update process. The evaluation indicated that the Crosswind Runway offered limited capacity enhancement benefits in the context of other airfield capacity enhancements being pursued by the County, and that its decommissioning would make available an additional 50 acres for terminal development, and a further 20 acres for support facility development on the West Side. The decommissioning of the Crosswind Runway was included in the October 2004 County Objective Statement. C Alternatives North Airfield Development EIS Alternative C1: Alternative C1 includes the construction of a new closely-spaced parallel runway approximately 850 feet north of existing Runway 9L/27R, with a total length of 7,721 feet. For purposes of the EIS analysis, the proposed new north runway is referred to as Runway 8/26. The new runway would include standard RSA s on both ends without encroaching onto Interstate 95 to the west or the existing FEC Railway to the east. This alignment would require the displacement of multiple cargo and general aviation tenants located along the north side of the airfield. Runway 13/31 would be permanently decommissioned when construction of Runway 8/26 begins. North Parallel Runway As stipulated in the Board s December 9, 2003, motion cited above, the potential to construct a north parallel runway was analyzed as part of Phase 1 of the Master Plan Update. The analysis indicated that significant long-term capacity benefits could be achieved from the development of a north parallel runway, and the option to construct such a north parallel runway should be preserved in future planning for the ultimate build-out of the Airport site. D Alternatives South and North Airfield Development Alternatives D1 and D2 combine elements of the B and C Alternatives with development proposed on both the south and north airfield (i.e. the redevelopment or reconstruction of existing Runway 9R/27L on the south airfield; and the development of a new closely-spaced parallel Runway 8/26 on the north airfield, north of existing Runway 9L/27R). Consequently with the combination alternatives as noted above the option to construct a north parallel runway should be preserved in future planning. EIS Alternative D1: Alternative D1 combines the elements of Alternatives B1b and C1, and includes the following elements: the redevelopment of Runway 9R/27L to 8,000 feet by 150 feet, elevated over the FEC Railway and U.S. Highway 1 to the east, with the Dania Cut-off Canal as the western limit of the runway; the decommissioning of Runway 13/31; the installation of 600 feet of EMAS on each end of Runway 9R/27L; and the construction of a new north airfield runway (Runway 8/26) 7,721 feet long and located 850 feet north of existing Runway 9L/27R. EIS Alternative D2: Alternative D2 combines the elements of Alternatives B4 and C1 and includes the following elements: the redevelopment of Runway 9R/27L 340 feet north of the existing Runway 9R/27L and the shifting of Airport Perimeter Road, U.S. Highway 1, and the FEC Railway to the east to achieve the 6,001 foot minimum runway length with the Dania Cut-off Canal as the western limit of the runway; the decommissioning of Runway 13/31; the installation of 600 feet of EMAS on each end of Runway 9R/27L; and the construction of a new north airfield runway (Runway 8/26) 7,721 feet long and located 850 feet north of existing Runway 9L/27R. 6. TERMINAL AREA DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS Terminal Area Development Options Over the course of Phase 2 of the Master Plan Update, a new generation of Terminal Area Development Options were defined and analyzed for the development of terminal facilities to accommodate forecast demand through The full range of options considered is described in the Phase 2 Technical Appendices volume. Each option was considered in the context of the following key criteria: 1. The future role of FLL in the regional and national system relative to trends in the airline industry and local demographics. 2. Pre-existing interlocal agreements, and DRI and County policies and development objectives. 3. Compatibility with airfield development from the EIS process. 4. Accommodation of projected demand over a 10 and 20 year planning horizon. 5. Flexibility to preserve options over time. 6. Compatibility with ongoing projects. 7. Ground access level of service for roadways, curb and parking facilities. 8. Efficient and safe aircraft movements between gates and the airfield. 9. Passenger level of service, security, and other amenities within the terminal facilities. 10. Greater complexity of future improvements related to potential redevelopment of existing facilities. 11. Phasing considerations: a. Maintain supply of available contact gates. b. Maximize use of existing facilities to extent practical. c. Manage program costs and financial capacity. Five Options Developed for Further Consideration From all of the terminal area development options considered, five were selected for stakeholder consultation and refinement in Phase 2. The five options generally fall in two categories. Each category of options is designed to provide facilities that would accommodate demand over the Master Plan (10 20 year) timeframe. The first category of options, referred to as additive options, would provide for short-term needs by adding capacity to existing structures with the minimum of demolition and redevelopment. The other category of options, referred to as redevelopment options, would provide for short-term needs through the redevelopment of existing structures and facilities. However, only the redevelopment options would preserve the County s ability to pursue longer-term development at the Airport beyond the year timeframe. An evaluation of the five options is provided in Section 6 of this summary report, as summarized on the following pages. ES-3

7 Figure ES-1 ADDITIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OPTION 1A Additive Concept Option 1A This option (shown on Figure ES-1) provides incremental development to accommodate projected demand for the next years with an assumed maximum of 79 gates. It includes proposed Concourse A, the T4 International Gateway terminal, and extensions to existing Concourses E and F with an airside connection, and new parking facilities at the intermodal center site. The right of way for a future Automated People Mover (APM) is maintained. Option 1A would meet shortterm growth needs effectively, but would result in progressively lower levels of airside and landside service, and limit long-term growth potential. ES-4

8 Figure ES-2 REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OPTION 2A Redevelopment Concept Option 2A This option (shown on Figure ES-2) ultimately connects the existing unit terminals through incremental development, and maintains options for future additional development. Option 2A includes proposed Concourse A, a modification to the International Gateway terminal concept to allow for integration with a connected terminal facility, the ultimate replacement of Concourses E and F with a new connected satellite concourse west of the existing terminal complex, a redevelopment of the Palm Garage as an upgraded parking facility with commercial pick-up / drop-off on level one, and new parking facilities at the intermodal center site. The right of way for a future Automated People Mover (APM) is maintained. Linkage of the existing unit terminals would provide better curbside presentation for passenger pick-up and drop-off. Option 2A would be more expensive than Option 1A, but would provide for better level of service operations in the long term, and added future capacity options. ES-5

9 Figure ES-3 REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OPTION 2B Redevelopment Concept Option 2B This option (shown on Figure ES-3) ultimately connects and replaces the existing unit terminals through incremental development, and maintains options for future additional development. Option 2B includes proposed Concourse A, phased replacement of Terminals 2, 3 and 4, and includes a new parallel concourse configuration oriented to maximize the relationship with the new parallel runway configuration of the EIS B1 options. This option also includes a redevelopment of the Palm Garage as an upgraded parking facility with commercial pick-up / drop-off on level one, and new parking facilities at the intermodal center site. The right of way for a future Automated People Mover (APM) is maintained. Linkage of the new unit terminals would provide better curbside presentation for passenger pick-up and drop-off. This option would maintain passenger level-ofservice standards, and accommodate forecast demand to 2025 and beyond. ES-6

10 Figure ES-4 REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OPTION 2C Redevelopment Concept Option 2C This option (shown on Figure ES-4) provides for incremental development to achieve ultimate redevelopment of the terminal complex into a centralized passenger processing facility to maximize passenger convenience, and operational efficiency and flexibility. Option 2C includes the proposed Concourse A, upgrades to Terminal 1, and ultimate replacement of Terminals 2, 3 and 4 with a new central processor at the west end of a redeveloped access, roadway and parking system, linking a parallel concourse configuration for optimized airfield access. International gates would be located at the west end of the central processor to allow for centralized connection opportunities, and to optimize the international / domestic split of airfield movements. This option also includes a redevelopment of the Palm Garage as an upgraded parking facility with commercial pick-up / drop-off on level one, and the option of an expansion of the Hibiscus Garage. Development of new parking facilities at the intermodal site would not be required in this scheme due to the increased parking capacity afforded in the terminal area by the central processor concept. The right of way for the future Automated People Mover (APM) is maintained, but reduced in required length and scope due to the inherent efficiencies of the central processor concept. This option would greatly improve passenger level-of-service standards, maximize flexibility for future aviation industry changes, and accommodate forecast demand to 2025 and beyond. ES-7

11 Figure ES-5 REDEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OPTION 2D Redevelopment Concept Option 2D This option (shown on Figure ES-5) ultimately connects and replaces the existing unit terminals through incremental development to an ultimate unified terminal complex, and maintains options for future additional development. Option 2D includes proposed Concourse A, phased replacement of Terminals 2, 3 and 4, and includes a new parallel concourse configuration oriented to maximize the relationship with the new parallel runway configuration of the EIS B1 options. Under Option 2D, a continuous crescent shaped roadway scheme is developed to maximize curb frontage, which becomes the driver for the terminal configuration. However the resultant terminal complex retains many of the unit terminal characteristics of the four unit terminal configuration. This option also includes a redevelopment of the Palm Garage as an upgraded parking facility with commercial pick-up / drop-off on level one, and the option of an expansion of the Hibiscus Garage. The right of way for the future Automated People Mover (APM) is maintained, but reduced in required length and scope due to the efficiencies of the concept. This option would improve passenger level-of-service standards, and accommodate forecast demand to ES-8

12 7. SUPPORT FACILITIES AND GENERAL AVIATION West Side Development Plan The West Side of the Airport is currently underutilized. About 130 acres of land are currently available for development and provide opportunities for the flexible use of land based on the County s long-term development goals. A proposed land use plan for the West Side is outlined in Section 7 of this summary report. The plan calls for (1) consolidation of general aviation facilities on the West Side, (2) reservation of land for future general aviation, air cargo, and Airport support facilities on the West Side, and (3) a flexible long-term plan capable of accommodating the possible relocation of existing North Side facilities if a future north parallel runway is needed in the long-term plan past However, in order to accommodate such a north runway proposal, a subsequent strategy to acquire additional land to support airport uses such as cargo and general aviation will need to be considered. South Side Development Plan Development options for the South Side will be substantially determined by the final design of the South Runway. If the currently proposed runway location, alignment, and configuration is maintained, the South Side can accommodate overflow surface parking. General Aviation According to the FAA TAF, general aviation activity at the Airport in 2020 will not exceed the 1999 peak. The County has determined that general aviation facilities will be retained at the Airport. General aviation facilities should be consolidated on the West Side of the Airport. A process and timetable should be established for the County to implement general aviation user fees that reflect general aviation s share of Airport costs. 8. PHASE 2 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of Phase 2 was to refine and further develop the alternatives generated in Phase 1, and to propose a recommended Terminal Area Master Plan for the 20 year planning horizon. Due to the uncertainty of aviation demands and strategies that became central to the discussion during the course of Phase 2, it was recommended that a demand based, flexible future development scenario be adopted. As a result, the recommended development option focused on near-term demands and goals, balanced with long term airport optimization options as represented above. Certain conclusions can be drawn, as follows: Affordability The County has the capacity to finance improvements at FLL to accommodate forecast demand through 2025 while maintaining reasonable user costs, although these costs would be higher than FLL s current airline costs. Short-term Options A set of Airport improvements can be identified to accommodate traffic growth expected in the near-term (within a 10 year timeframe), and some of these projects could be initiated before resolution of all issues related to long-term development because such short-term projects are substantially common to both long-term alternatives. Airfield Configuration Critical Decisions regarding the airfield configuration at FLL were critical to making nonairfield development decisions in particular with regard to the disposition of the Crosswind Runway, location of the South Runway, and the resultant airport development scenario options, including the terminal complex, general aviation, and cargo development options. Expandable Options a Key Strategy A key strategy is for future development options to be incrementally expandable so that the County can manage growth incrementally in response to demand, and in response to the progressive development of the airfield. Certain Lower-cost Development Options Limit Future Expansion Certain lower cost options to provide capacity by expanding current facilities (rather than redeveloping them) limited the potential of the Airport to accommodate demand after Link Between Airport Development and Environmental Programs The County recognizes the need to link Airport development programs with aggressive noise mitigation and other environmental programs to maximize compatibility between the Airport and its environs. Phase 2 Stakeholder Outreach an Important Input to Decision-making Phase 2/3 provided the broad input necessary for the County to make a fully informed decision about preferred development strategies, and to resolve trade-offs concerning cost, level-of-service, and potential to accommodate demand beyond Preferred Development Scenarios Additive and Redevelopment As indicated above, a development scenario was adopted that maintained a common short-term development plan to address the issues and initiatives critical to the Airport over a 10 year timeframe. Two long-term scenarios were then further developed based upon this common shortterm development plan. The two long-term scenarios varied regarding passenger service, operational efficiencies and flexibility vs. financial viability relative to implementation of either scenario. The ultimate goal was to allow the Airport the appropriate flexibility to make development decisions over time, and when appropriate, thereby minimizing long-term risk associated with potentially premature decisions in a relatively volatile aviation climate. Common Short-term Development Scenario A common Short-term Development Scenario (shown on Figure ES-6) has been developed as the preferred based scenario for either of the following Additive or Redevelopment Alternatives. This Scenario focuses on the redevelopment of Terminal 4. Runway alternative B1b as recommended by the EIS requires that significant modifications occur to Terminal 4 Concourse H and the surrounding aircraft apron and aircraft ground movement areas. Runway alternative B1b also requires the relocation of the Broward County Aviation Department from the current temporary facilities east of Terminal 4. Additional airlines have announced new international service at the Airport. Terminal 4 is the international arrivals terminal at FLL The Terminal 1, Concourse A project has been deferred pending reconsideration of the most viable location for new gate development at the Airport. Concourse A underwent an Environmental Assessment and received a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the FAA for the development of 5 gates. The area remains reserved for future consideration. The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) at FLL has requested additional new administrative space at the Airport. As a result of the confluence of the above issues, a consolidated Terminal 4 program was developed to accommodate a new Concourse H to address modifications necessary as a result of the new runway and the need to accommodate increased gate demand formerly associated with the proposed Concourse A development. This new concourse will provide for swing gate operations (either domestic or international) for all gates. Terminal 4, Concourse H will also be connected to Terminal 3, Concourse F to increase gate utilization flexibility for both domestic and international operations. Additionally, BCAD and TSA offices will be accommodated in the redeveloped T4 with associated support and parking facilities. Modifications will be made to the Terminal 4 facility to improve passenger convenience and operations commensurate with the upgraded Concourse H. These modifications will include security checkpoint, baggage processing, and concessions improvements, and a review of other passenger processing facilities. Additive Alternative The Additive Alternative (shown on figure ES-7) is based upon Option 1A (shown on figure ES-1) as outlined above. This scenario represents a longterm incremental approach to terminal improvements which maintains the existing unit terminal configuration, and maximizes re-utilization of the majority of the existing terminal complex. Accordingly, the incremental capital investments are minimized on a project by project basis, resulting from smaller development packages, with a greater number of phases between the near and longterm development scenarios. This development scenario results in limitations to terminal capacity beyond the gate threshold, and results in lower levels of passenger service and operational efficiency over time. A consequence of the adoption of the Additive development alternative is that the operational costs will tend to increase as a less efficient overall facility develops over time, and upgrades and maintenance to aging facilities and infrastructure increase over time. Redevelopment Alternative The Redevelopment Alternative (shown on figure ES-8) is based upon the Commission s preferred alternative Redevelopment Concept Option 2C (shown on figure ES-4). This scenario represents a long-term redevelopment of the terminal facilities to provide for centralized processing which will provide ultimate flexibility for the Airport and the airlines while also provid- ES-9

13 Figure ES-6 COMMON SHORT-TERM DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO ES-10

14 Figure ES-7 ADDITIVE ALTERNATIVE ES-11

15 Figure ES-8 REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE ES-12

16 ing optimized operational efficiency. As demand dictates, after maximizing the use of the short-term development described above, the terminal complex will be replaced in a phased redevelopment resulting in a centrally located central processor accommodating all operations with the exception of existing Terminal 1. The new central processor will be developed in the vicinity of Terminal 3 and the Palm Garage, and will maximize passenger convenience through the use of common-use facilities, shortened walking distances, cruise ship passenger accommodation, and the provision of appropriate ground transportation support facilities. This scenario will also maximize revenue generation potential for the Airport with the provision of higher value parking facilities, and increased productivity of concessions areas while decreasing unit operational costs. This development scenario also provides additional flexibility for future development beyond the Master Plan Update timeframe. Key Elements of Phase 2/3 Three Key Elements of Phase 2/3 Phase 2/3 of the Master Plan Update includes three key elements stakeholder outreach, support for the Board s decision-making process, and implementation planning. Stakeholder Outreach Phase 2/3 included a program of outreach to key stakeholders coordinated with the other key initiatives of the Airport including the EIS process and the Part 150 Study. Stakeholder outreach included Airport users, the airlines, Airport neighbors, and other interested groups. The purposes of the outreach program were to (1) present the development options outlined in this report, and (2) receive comments. This will aid the process for the refinement of the options and will continue to provide input to decision-making by the Board. Board Decision-making Process Phase 2/3 also included support for the decision-making process concerning the adoption of a preferred development option. Key linkages considered during this decision-making process included trade-offs between level-of-service and cost, the interface between the airfield development alternative recommended from the Proposed South Runway Extension EIS process and the terminal area development option selected as preferred by the Board, and specific decisions regarding access, roadways, and parking. As indicated above, a development scenario was adopted that maintained a common short-term development plan to address the issues and initiatives critical to the Airport over a 10 year timeframe. Two long-term scenarios were then further developed based upon this common short-term development plan. The two long-term scenarios varied with regard to levels of passenger service, operational efficiencies and flexibility vs. financial viability relative to the implementation of either scenario. The ultimate goal was to allow the Airport the appropriate flexibility to make development decisions over time, and when appropriate, thereby minimizing long-term potential risk associated with the adoption of premature decisions in a relatively volatile aviation climate. Implementation Following the Board s designation of a preferred development plan for FLL, Phase 2/3 included support for securing the necessary government agency approvals to proceed with implementation. Such approvals included FAA approval of the updated Airport Layout Plan and coordination with State, County, and local officials as required to amend the County s Comprehensive Plan. ES-13