final pag meeting #4 notes - dec 12 2017€¦ · 12/12/2017 · 2/12/2018 2 3 the following...

Meeting Summary ABE Master Plan Project Advisory Group (PAG) Meeting #4 December 12, 2017 Prepared by: Kim Fabend, C&S Companies

File: N93.012.001

Attendees: See Sign‐In List

The fourth meeting of the Project Advisory Group (PAG) for the ABE Master Plan was held at the Lehigh Northampton Airport Authority (LNAA) offices to review development alternatives. A copy of the presentation and sign‐in sheet is attached for reference. Following is a summary of items discussed during the meeting.

Alternatives Development & Evaluation

An update of the project process was presented as well as the status of on‐going elements. Marc

Champigny provided an overview of the runway and taxiway alternatives, cargo development

alternatives, and the alternatives associated with general aviation and service/support facility needs. Scott

Tumulo presented on terminal area alternatives and Kim Fabend presented on access, circulation, and

parking alternatives. The following items were mentioned during the presentation or through further

discussion.

Regarding Terminal Alternative 3A – the separate FIS (federal inspection service) building would

result in a poor terminal passenger experience since most international travelers would be

getting a connection to another destination. Differing opinions on this because the service is not

defined and could be point to point which would limit connections.

The plans for Airport Road are continuously changing with the anticipated development in the

area and subsequent additional traffic. For example, the one southbound lane being built on

Airport Road may not be adequate for the additional development proposed north of the

Airport.

It was noted that there was a past parking study developed that evaluated adding parking

vertically on the existing public parking area and potential access from the terminal roadway at

different points which may be helpful if additional parking is needed in the future.

There was a lot of discussion regarding truck traffic on Race St and Airport Rd due to

development in the area as well as the potential for some, or all cargo moving to the northwest

quadrant of the airfield.

The preliminary preferred alternative drawing indicated maintaining the protection of the land

associated with a 3rd runway. It was noted that the previous Airport Layout Plan (ALP) showed a

relocation of Willowbrook Rd. A recent subdivision development has language associated with it

that would make the relocation of Willowbrook Rd come into Weaversville Rd infeasible or

impossible. The current assumption is that Willowbrook Rd would be tunneled or somehow

accommodated under the new runway, not relocated, but this will be reconsidered and

confirmed before finalizing the proposed development plan.

The information and discussion items above will be used for input and follow up as appropriate in the

development of the master plan. Meeting was adjourned.

End Meeting

2/12/2018

1

PROJECT ADVISORY GROUP (PAG) MEETING #4

DRAFT ALTERNATIVES AND CONCEPTAIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE

LEHIGH VALLEY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

December 12, 2017

2The following document is for internal use only by Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority staff. This document/presentation contains information that is subject to change and is not available for distribution.

• Where we are in the process

• Alternatives Development

• Phasing and Reporting

• Next Steps

Agenda

2/12/2018

2


Master Plan Process Flowchart: 19 Elements

2/1/17 8/15/17 12/12/17

Jan/Feb 18

10/26/16 Mar 18

4/20/17

Jan/Feb 18

6/2/17


• Runways

• Taxiways

• Terminal Area

• Ground Access and Circulation

• Cargo

• General Aviation and Support Facilities

Alternative Development

2/12/2018

3


• Economic/Strategic– LNAA Strategic Goals

– Construction Cost

• Operational/Maintenance– Facility Requirements and Design Standards

– Development and Maintenance

– Implementation Feasibility

• Natural Resources/Sustainability– Environmental Impacts or Challenges

– Sustainability, Long-Term Planning

• Social/Community/Passenger Experience– Off-airport considerations

– Passenger/User experience

Alternative Evaluation Factors


• Pavement Management Plan – 5-year maintenance plan

• Increase/efficient use of capacity with taxiway improvements

• Address airfield design geometry, MOS’s, if able

• Obstruction identification and removal

• Control RPZs/RW 6 blast pad

• RW 13-31 considerations (EMAS lifecycle, extension)

• Phased extension of RW 6-24 up to 10,000 ft

• Maintain plan for 3rd runway in next planning period, 20+ years

Airfield Facility Requirements

2/12/2018

4



Runway 6-24 Preferred Concept

• Extend to 10,000 feet in one phase

• Consideration of costs to only move ILS, approach lights one time

• Current users priority to remove obstructions first

• Estimated timing in the 10 to 15 year planning period

• Estimated construction cost $21 million excluding land acquisition cost

2/12/2018

5



2/12/2018

6


• Consideration of EMAS lifecycle as decision point for extension

• Estimated timing in the 10 to 15 year planning period

• Estimated construction cost:

– ALT 2 – $46.2 million

– ALT 3 – $53.7 million

• Alternatives exclude land acquisition cost

• Wind coverage dictates status quo is suitable for fleet mix operations

• Extend to 7,600 feet utilizing EMAS, to 10,000 feet not practicable

• Maintains long-term plan connection to 3rd runway (20+ years)

Runway 13-31 Preferred Concept


2/12/2018

7



Taxiway Preferred Concepts

• All taxiway improvements shown will help airfield efficiency

• Phasing priorities proposed to support other alternative development

• Runway 6-24 Taxiway Improvements:

– Priority – Parallel, supports cargo, est. $18.7 million, year 5 to 10

– Could be phased, north done first to support cargo, full parallel is operationally efficient and safer

• Runway 13-31 Taxiway Improvements:

– Priority – Entrance to terminal, swap with service road, est. $1.1 million, year 5 to 10

– Low priority – Parallel, when development on west, est. $19.9 million, year 10 to 15

– Likely phased, portion to east is financially impracticable and in the 20+ year horizon

2/12/2018

8


• Require 8 gates: 7 for large regional jets, 1 narrow-body

– No additional required, but recommend adding 1 for flexibility

• Passenger security area is undersized

– Up to 4 lanes and 3,500 SF needed (double existing)

• Aged equipment and upgrades

• Some concession space needed – post-security

• Minimal increase outbound baggage area

• Federal Inspection Service (FIS) Facility (exploratory)

Terminal Area


Alternatives – Terminal Area

2/12/2018

9





2/12/2018

10





2/12/2018

11





2/12/2018

12


Terminal Cost Estimates/Ranking

Alternatives

Item 1A 1B 1C 2 3A 3B

Construction Cost $8,500,000 $34,050,000 $7,472,500

Contingency 20% $1,700,000 $6,810,000 $1,494,500

Construction Cost Total $9.1M $13.5M $10.2M $41M $9M $8.7M

FIS Facility $9M $11.2M $15.7M

Taken from Arora Report

1A 1B 1C 2 3A 3B

TERMINAL CRITERIA

Economic/Strategic Factors 7 6 6 7 5 7

Operational/Maintenance Factors 8 8 9 8 9 9

Natural Resources/Sustainability 3 3 6 2 5 2

Social/Community Impacts/Passenger Experience 4 4 4 6 2 4

TOTAL SCORE 22 21 25 23 21 22

RANKING 3 4 1 2 4 3

ALTERNATIVES


Terminal Preferred Concepts

• Vertical circulation improvements:

– Escalator/elevator improvements or replacement, est. TBD million, year 0 to 5

• Security checkpoint improvements:

– Build new security checkpoint and circulation to meet 20-year demand, est. TBD million, year 5-10

• Long-term concourse expansion placeholder

– Mirror the concourse layout to maximize gates, beyond the 20-year planning horizon

• FIS facility feasibility:

– FIS facility development, est. TBD million, not tied to a year, dependent on demand or airport policy

2/12/2018

13


• Airport Road intersection congestion

• Arrivals curbside congestion

• Parking– Reallocate existing public parking area

– More short-term & ADA spaces

– Employee/rental car parking will be sufficient

• Improve confusing intersection/entrance alignment

• Incorporate land use analysis recommendations

• Pavement Management Plan – 5-year maintenance plan

Access, Circulation, & Parking


• Common Elements to All Alternatives

– Changes to public parking ingress/egress

– Reallocation of public parking spaces – increase short-term spaces

– Proposed development areas

• Travel Plaza, Retail Plaza, Hotel

• Demolition of parking booths on internal roadway

– New access & traffic signal

– No proposed changes to curbside areas at this time

Access, Circulation & Parking

2/12/2018

14


Alternative 1 – Ground Access and Circulation

• Terminal traffic separated from development traffic

• Two-way internal roadway for development area & multi-modal center

• Does not improve internal intersection

• No internal delay/queuing issues anticipated



• TBD

• All traffic moved to new access

• Two-way internal roadway for development area & multi-modal center

• Reduces confusion/conflicts at internal intersection but increases conflicts along internal roadway


2/12/2018

15



• TBD

• All traffic moved to new access

• One-way circulator roadway around development area & multi-modal center

• Reduces confusion/conflicts at internal intersection & circulator roadway

• Longer route for some internal traffic



Access, Circulation & Parking

• Estimated Construction Costs:– Circulation Alt 1 - $1.34 million

– Circulation Alt 2 - $1.54 million

– Circulation Alt 3 - $1.98 million

• Preferred Concept - Alternative 2

1 2 3

ROADWAYS/GROUND ACCESS FACILITIES CRITERIA

Economic/Strategic Factors 6 5 4

Operational/Maintenance Factors 4 5 5

Natural Resources/Sustainability 4 4 3

Social/Community Impacts/Passenger Experience 4 5 6

TOTAL SCORE 18 19 18

RANKING 2 1 2

ALTERNATIVES

2/12/2018

16


• Building area deficient by approximately 20,000 – 70,700 SF

• Apron area deficient by approximately 102,900 – 352,000 SF

Cargo Facilities

Cargo Building Area (95,570 SF)

Year

Existing LVIA

Ratio

Industry

Standard Ratio

Average of

Existing LVIA

Ratio & Industry

Standard Ratio

2022 123,372 85,675 104,524

2027 134,794 93,607 114,200

2032 146,699 101,874 124,286

2037 158,877 110,331 134,604

2040 166,289 115,479 140,884

Cargo Apron Area (474,530 SF)

Year

Existing LVIA

Ratio

Industry

Standard

Ratio

Average of

Existing LVIA

Ratio & Industry

Standard Ratio

2022 613,160 428,375 520,768

2027 669,924 468,035 568,980

2032 729,092 509,370 619,231

2037 789,616 551,655 670,636

2040 826,458 577,395 701,927


2/12/2018

17



2/12/2018

18



Evaluation of Cargo Alternatives

• Total Program 9 Spaces

• Estimated Construction Costs:– Cargo Alt 1 - $52.0 million

– Cargo Alt 2 - $79.7 million



• Cargo Alt 1 is only 3 additional spaces

• Hybrid Preferred Concept:– Limit new apron in existing cargo area,

new aprons and buildings built on north side

– Buildings, truck docks, GSE, employee parking to support operation

– Split operation, or reuse of existing cargo for GA hangars, deicing pad, RON parking

1 2 3 4

CARGO FACILITIES CRITERIA

Economic/Strategic Factors 1 4 6 6

Operational/Maintenance Factors 5 9 8 9

Natural Resources/Sustainability 2 8 8 8

Social/Community Impacts/Passenger Experience 4 4 4 4

TOTAL SCORE 12 25 26 27

RANKING 4 3 2 1

ALTERNATIVES

2/12/2018

19


• T-hangars and aprons will be sufficient

• Additional conventional hangar space needed

• Tenant survey noted need for FBO improvements

General Aviation Facilities

YearTotal Conventional

Hangar Requirements (SF)

Existing Non-exclusive Conventional Hangar

Space (SF)Surplus/(Deficit) (SF)

2016 252,300 258,680 6,380

2017 258,800 258,680 (120)

2022 283,600 258,680 (25,000)

2027 317,900 258,680 (60,000)

2032 355,700 258,680 (97,000)

2037 395,300 258,680 (137,000)

2040 421,300 258,680 (163,000)


Alternatives – General Aviation and Support

2/12/2018

20


• Drainage Evaluation

• Obstruction Analysis

• PMP and Maintenance

• Financial Modeling

• All Projects on Approved ALP Subject to Environmental Review

On-Going Elements Still in Play


• Finalize Working Paper Development

• Finalize Preferred Development Concept

• Finalize Phasing, Incorporate Maintenance

• Complete Financial Modeling

• Winter Meetings

– PAG #5 – Final

– PIW – Final

Schedule and Next Steps

final pag meeting #4 notes - dec 12 2017€¦ · 12/12/2017 · 2/12/2018 2 3 the following...

Documents