planning advisory c - fresno airports master plan · advantages o less pavement cost disadvantages...

FRESNO YOSEMITE

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Meeting #4

December 14, 2017

Planning Advisory

Committee (PAC)

MASTER PLAN

UPDATE

Today’s Agenda

o Welcomeo Introductions

o Progress update

o Alternatives analysis• Airfield

• Terminal area

• General aviation

• ATCT

• ARFF

o Next steps

We are

Here

Airport Master Plan Process

Pre-Planning, Study Design,

Secure Grants

Activity & Demand

Forecasting

Alternative Concepts

Capacity Analysis &

Facility Requirements

Inventory Existing

Conditions

ALP Plan Set

Financial Plan

Implementation Plan

Final Documents

& Plan Adoption

Stakeholder Engagement & Planning Advisory Committee

PAC

#1

Aerial Survey & Mapping

Public Workshop #1

Public Workshop #3

Public Workshop #2

PAC

#2

PAC

#4

PA

C #

5

CompleteCurrent WorkFuture Effort

PAC

#3

Alternatives

Analysis

Image sources: Wikimedia Commons, 9/11/17

CON

PRO

Airfield

Areas of Concern

Terminal Apron, High-speed Exits and Taxiway A Capability

Provide Group-III Access

Middle third of runwayAreas of concern

Terminal Apron and Taxilane A

Confusing multi-node taxiway intersection, wide

expanse of pavement

Confusing intersection, non-standard angles, expanse of pavement,

and mix of aircraft types

Conflict between Taxilane A and gates 16, 17, 14B

14B

16 17

Taxiway B (Grp-IV)

Taxiway A (Grp-II)

Taxilane A (Grp-III)

Non-movement Area

Existing Configuration & Concerns• Objective – adhere to FAA criteria and simplify configuration

B7

B5

B3

Direct apron-runway access


Basic Solution – remove B6 Extended Alternative – remove Taxilane A and expand non-movement area

Advantageso Maintain familiar procedureso ATC maintains more control of circulation

Disadvantageso Does not de-conflict pushbacko Less flexibility for ramp agents

Advantageso Increases apron spaceo De-conflicts pushbackso Reduces ATC workload

Disadvantageso Increases ramp agent responsibilityo Reduces ATC routing flexibility – loss of 1 apron

connector

Apron expands

150’

Movement Area

Boundary

Middle third of runwayPavement to be removedTaxiway island

B6 B6


Refined Alternative – reconfigure B6, remove Taxilane A, expand commercial apron and non-movement area

Middle third of runwayNew pavementPavement to be removedTaxiway island

Non-movement Area(aka. Commercial ramp limits)

Movement Area

B6 B3

B7

High-speed Exits

Northbound high-speed exit Southbound 90-degree exits

Advantageso Good capture rate for Runway 29R

Disadvantageso Doesn’t support current ground traffic needso Higher pavement cost

Advantageso Better capture rates for both 11R-29Lo Reduces taxi timeo Maintains operational flexibilityo Lower pavement cost

Disadvantageso Lower capture rate from 11L-29R

These are not mutually exclusive. Prioritize 90-degree exits and reserve potential north high-speed for future if needed.

High-speed Exits

Connection with terminal apron and Taxiway A

Minimum spacing from B5 and B7 Align w/B7 add apron connector

Advantageso Spacing allows for 3 Group-IV terminal apron

connectors

Disadvantageso Higher pavement cost

Advantageso Less pavement cost

Disadvantageso Less circulation options – 2 terminal apron

connectors

Blended Terminal Apron and Exit

Taxiway Alternatives

Middle third of runwayNew pavementPavement to be removedTaxiway islandMovement area/commercial ramp limits

Potential Future High-speed Exit

Upgrade Taxiway A to Group-III

Maintain Taxiway Centerline

Shift Taxiway Centerline

Objective: improve access and circulation for large corporate and charter aircraft

Group-II OFA: 131’Group-III OFA: 186’

New pavementPavement to be removed

Featureso Relocate service road

on to GA apron

Advantageso Lower construction cost

Disadvantageso Reduces apron depth by

±20 (220’ remaining)

Featureso TW centerline shifts ±26’

Advantageso Maintains service road and

GA apron space

Disadvantageso Relocate airfield electrical

vaulto Higher construction cost

Terminal Area

Enplanement Forecast

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

Planning Activity Levels (PALs)

Historic Baseline Preliminary FAA TAF High Growth

Used for planning of terminal and parking facilities.

PAL 1 (1.0M)

PAL 3 (1.65M)

PAL 2 (1.24M)

Terminal Requirements

Functional Area Existing Facilities

PAL 1 Requirement

PAL 2 Requirement

PAL 3 Requirement Total

Additional NeededEnplanements 773,000 (2016) 1.0 M 1.24 M 1.65M

International Arrivals Facility (FIS) 10,500 sf 16,000 16,000 16,000 5,500

Peak Aircraft Parking Positions (i.e. contact gates) *

11 9 10 12 1

International Arrival Positions * 2 2 2 2 0

Remote Aircraft Parking Positions 2 2 3 4 2

Passenger Hold Room 19,900 sf 14,600 17,400 22,900 3,000

Concessions (pre and post security) 9,400 sf 8,500 9,000 14,850 5,450

Security Screening Checkpoint 4,300 sf 3,300 5,300 8,800 4,500

Baggage Makeup 2,900 sf 6,800 8,400 9,900 7,000

Public Parking 2,050 spaces 2,460 3,050 4,050 2,000

Rental Car Ready Return 570 spaces 410 500 670 100

Rental Car Storage 580 spaces 1,220 1,520 2,020 1,440

* One program objective is to provide Passenger Boarding Bridges at all gates.

Incremental PAL 1 Requirements

PAL 1REQUIREMENTS• New auto parking• FIS expansion (process 2 simultaneous aircraft)• Post security concession expansion• Additional baggage makeup• Additional passenger boarding bridges• 9 peak hour positions• 2 international arrival positions• 11 remain overnight positions

Domestic mainline

International mainline

Domestic regional

Remote/RON position

PAL 1 PARKING GARAGE

500 SPACES

Spare peak hour positions

Tugged to departure positions

Aircraft Parking Positions

BAGGAGE MAKEUP EXPANSION FIS EXPANSION


PAL 2REQUIREMENTS• Expanded FIS• Concession expansion• Additional baggage makeup• Security checkpoint expansion• Baggage makeup expansion• New passenger hold room• New circulation space• Additional passenger boarding bridges• Parking garage expansion• 10 peak hour positions• 2 international positions• 14 remain overnight positions


500 SPACES


500 SPACES



PAL 3 REQUIREMENTS• Parking garage expansion• Rental car ready/return expansion or relocation• Additional baggage makeup• 12 peak hour positions• 2 international positions• 15 remain overnight positions


1,000 SPACES


500 SPACES


500 SPACES

Spare peak hour position

Spare remote positions if

needed

Logical Phase 1 Program

Satisfies all PAL 2 and some PAL 3 requirements

PHASE ONE IMPROVEMENT HIGHLIGHTS• New auto parking (could be incremental)• East concourse• Apron expansion• Expanded FIS• Concession expansion• Baggage makeup expansion• Security checkpoint expansion• Additional R.O.N. parking

PARKING GARAGE

500 SPACES

GARAGE EXPANSION

500 SPACES


Logical Phase 2 Program

Satisfies all PAL 3 requirements and upgrades “spine” concourse

PHASE TWO IMPROVEMENT HIGHLIGHTS• Existing concourse “spine” upgrades and

expansion• Concession expansion• Parking garage expansion• Additional R.O.N. parking

GARAGE EXPANSION

500 SPACES

GARAGE EXPANSION

1,000 SPACES

PARKING GARAGE

500 SPACES

GARAGE EXPANSION

1,000 SPACES

Spare peak hour position

Spare remote positions if

needed

Future Expansion Options

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS• East concourse expansion• New west concourse• Rental car relocation • New head house• Parking garage expansion

PARKING GARAGE

PARKING GARAGE

PARKING GARAGE

PARKING GARAGE

General Aviation

Aircraft Storage Requirements

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

Apron/Tie-Down T-Hangar Shared Hangar

Combined Based & Transient Aircraft

2016 2021 2026 2031 2036

910,100 sf available

161,800 sf available121,500 sf available

2036 surplus= 534,000 sf

2036 deficit = 137,000 sf

Unmet hangar demand currently accommodated on apron

Aircraft Storage Alternatives

New western hangar area New western area + redevelopment

Advantageso Undeveloped site, flexible configurationo Consistent with previous planningo Segregation aircraft/operator types

Disadvantageso Not centrally located

Advantageso Replaces aging T-hangarso Central community hangar location

Disadvantageso Tenant disruptionso Potential impact to T-hangar revenues


Extension of Anderson w/ in-fill Expand GA Apron & Shift Taxiway A

Advantageso Additional developable spaceo Consistent with previous planningo Improves adjacent land useo Improves traffic safety along Anderson, Winery

and Shields Avenues

Disadvantageso Residential property acquisition/relocationo Complex road realignments

Advantageso Potential to increase FBO apron spaceo Replaces aging T-hangarso Central location

Disadvantageso Relocate electrical vaulto Difficult phasingo Tenant disruptions o Complicates apron parkingo Precludes upgrading Taxiway A to Grp-III


New hangar area south of Anderson

Advantageso Segregation aircraft/operator typeso Centrally located

Disadvantageso Reduced commercial development propertyo Impacts road circulationo Limits rental car expansiono Eliminates tie-downs and likely requires hangar

relocations

Group-III Taxilane

Expandability with relocation of

maintenance warehouse

ATCT

Sources: PictometryOnline, Wikimedia Commons, accessed 12/4/17

Airport Traffic Control Tower• Outdated building (56 years old)• Difficult/expensive to update• Limited expandability, constrained site

ATCT Potential Relocation Sites

Preliminary FAA Tower Siting Study (2010) – 4 leading sitesPRIMARY SITING ISSUES• Airfield and approach line of sight• Tower height• Access and security• Development cost

ARFF Facilities

Existing Configuration & Concerns• Undersized facility (±7,500 sf - need ±15,000 sf) and constrained site

AIRPORT TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER

ARFF Location Alternatives

Existing location w/ maintenance Existing location move maintenance

Advantageso Proximity to terminal apron o Ease of co-locating safety serviceso Can provide for maintenance expansion

Disadvantageso Limits ATCT expandabilityo Limits terminal apron useo Construction phasing and operational impactso Limits optimum ARFF design

Advantageso Proximity to terminal areao Ease of co-locating safety serviceso Pull through bayso Additional parking

Disadvantageso Limits ATCT expansiono Limits terminal apron useo Relocate maintenance buildingo Construction phasing and operational impactso Limits optimum ARFF design

Maint. Expansion

Potential ATCT Site

ARFF

ARFFMaintenance


Northside of airfield Relocate hangars

Advantageso Ease of developmento Flexible site designo ATCT flexibility and securityo ±0.8 ac. available for redevelopment (ATC,

maintenance building, terminal apron)

Disadvantageso Distance from terminal aprono Does not support co-located public safety

Advantageso Proximity to terminal areao ATCT flexibility and securityo ±1 ac. available for redevelopment (ATC,

terminal apron)

Disadvantageso Tenant disruptiono Hangar redevelopment costo Reduced general aviation area

Potential ATCT Site

Available for Redevelopment

ARFF

ARFF

Maint.


East of RTR

Disadvantageso ±500’ further from terminal apron

Advantageso Proximity to terminalo Ability to co-locate safety serviceso Ease of developmento Flexible site designo ATCT flexibility and securityo ±1 ac. available for redevelopment (ATC,

terminal apron)o Consistent with previous planningo Supports potential CANG ARFF management

Future RTR Relocation

Future Apron Expansion

Future Terminal Support Facilities

M

A

Next Steps

o Public Open House – tonight

o Awaiting FAA approval of forecasts

o Finalize Working Paper #4 Facility Requirements

o Draft Working Paper #5 Alternatives

Thank You

Please contact the following with comments, questions or concerns regarding the Master Plan Study

Mark DavisAirports Planning ManagerCity of [email protected](559) 621-4532

Kevin [email protected]

Pam Keidel-AdamsKimley-HornPam.keidel-adams@Kimley-horn.com602-678-3422

mailto:[email protected]

