PENNDOT Multi-Modal Planning State Aviation System Plan Update 2007 AIRPORT SPONSOR BRIEFING December 2007 and January 2008 1 2007 SASP Update Objectives Element 1 - Classifications & Performance Criteria • Refine the airport classification system for advanced and some intermediate airports • Upgrade the SASP data management system • Assess the “State of the System” in terms of facility amenities and services performance criteria Element 2 – NPIAS Coverage • Review the FAA’s NPIAS entry standards and guiding principles • Perform case studies on SASP airports to decide if they should be in the NPIAS • Assess how well Pennsylvania’s NPIAS airports meet NPIAS entry standards and guiding principles and if the state has proper coverage from airports of national significance 2 2007 SASP Update Objectives Element 3 – System Capacity Needs & Prioritization • Define performance criteria that enable the BOA to identify projects that provide the greatest system operational benefit • Define demand versus capacity ratios at Pennsylvania’s key airports • Develop a simple benefits analysis for proposed projects in terms of their operational contribution to the system • Assemble the components of the project contribution analysis into a decision-support matrix Element 4 - Ideal Funding Levels • Develop project implementation timelines with major milestones and their durations for various project types • Define “ideal” or “realistic” funding levels for all SASP airports based on implementation timelines and four year funding needs 3 Element 1 Findings 4 Airport AirportClassification ClassificationCriteria Criteria Commercial Service 14 CFR Part 139 Certification – Class I, II & III 1 Advanced Advanced1 Intermediate2 4,500 foot main runway 3,800 foot main runway Visibility Minimums: 400 ft & ¾ mile Visibility Minimums: 600 ft & 1 mile HIRLs or MIRLs MIRLs airports had to meet at least two of these criteria and pass the sensitivity tests 2 Unless they were reclassified to or from Advanced, Intermediate, Basic, and Limited/Special Use airports in the 2002 SASP remained in their classifications in the 2007 SASP Sensitivity Tests NPIAS Designation Steady or increased aviation activity from 1999 to 2005 Steady or increased based aircraft from 1999 to 2005 Note: Sensitivity tests were used to determine the extent to which each airport was serving its role in the system 5 2007 SASP Airport Classifications1 Commercial Service (15) Altoona-Blair County (AOO) Arnold Palmer Regional (LBE) Bradford Regional (BFD) DuBois-Jefferson County (DUJ) Erie International (ERI) Harrisburg Intl (MDT) Johnstown-Cambria Co. (JST) Lancaster (LNS) Lehigh Valley Intl. (ABE) Philadelphia Intl. (PHL) Pittsburgh Intl. (PIT) University Park (UNV) Venango Regional (FKL) Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Intl. (AVP) Williamsport Regional (IPT) Advanced (15) Allegheny County (AGC) Beaver County (BVI) Bedford County (HMZ) Butler County (BTP) Capital City (CXY) Chester County (40N) Hazelton Municipal (HZL) Mifflin County (RVL) Northeast Philadelphia (PNE) Penn Valley (SEG) Port Meadville (GKJ) Reading Regional (RDG) Schuylkill County (ZER) Washington County (AFJ) York (THV) Reclassifications Intermediate to Advanced Advanced to Intermediate 1 Refer to footnote on previous slide on which airports were evaluated Intermediate (21) Bradford County (N27) Brandywine-West Chester (OQN) Carlisle (N94) Clearfield-Lawrence (FIG) Connellsville (VVS) Donegal Springs Airpark (N71) Doylestown (DYL) Indiana County (IDI) New Castle Municipal (UCP) New Garden Flying Field (N57) Northumberland County (N79) Perkiomen Valley (N10) Pocono Mountains Municipal (MPO) Pottstown Municipal (N47) Pottstown Limerick (PTW) Quakertown (UKT) Queen City-Allentown (1N9) Rock-Tarentum (9G1) Rostraver (FWQ) Wings Field (LOM) Zelienople Municipal (PJC) 6 Inventory Data Management System • The 12 individual spreadsheets were combined into an Access-based data management system • This conversion allows BOA to continuously update the data and to print reports: – Specific to each airport – For various regions within the Commonwealth – To compare airport or regional status between different years 7 2007 SASP Amenities & Services Criteria Amenity/Service1 Commercial Service2 Advanced Intermediate Runway Length 5,000 ft 4,500 ft 3,800 ft Runway Width ARC C-II ARC B-II ARC B-II Runway Strength >60,000 lbs SW >30,000 lbs SW >12,500 lbs SW Taxiway Full parallel Full parallel Full parallel NAVAIDS 200 ft & ½ mile 400 ft & ¾ mile 600 ft & 1 mile Approach Aids Beacon, wind cone, REILS, PAPIs, MALSR Beacon, wind cone, REILS, PAPIs, ALS Beacon, wind cone, REILS, VGSIs Runway Edge Lights HIRLs HIRLs or MIRLs MIRLs Weather ASOS/AWOS ASOS/AWOS ASOS/AWOS Facilities FBO, phone, bathroom, jet fuel, repairs, ground transportation FBO, phone, bathroom, jet fuel, repairs, ground transportation FBO, phone, bathroom, jet fuel, repairs, ground transportation Services Aircraft & auto parking, storage, terminal Aircraft & auto parking, storage, terminal Aircraft & auto parking, storage, terminal 1 Amenity/service 2 Commercial criteria categories are from the 2002 SASP Service airports must also have a CFR Part 139 Class I, II or III Certification 8 State of the System – Meeting Performance Criteria Amenity/Service Commercial Service Advanced Intermediate Runway Length 100% 100% 43% Runway Width 100% 100% 62% Runway Strength 73% 73% 71% Taxiway 73% 80% 43% NAVAIDS 73% 40% 62% Approach Aids 67% 33% 52% Runway Edge Lights 100% 100% 71% Weather 100% 100% 52% Facilities 100% 100% 76% Services 100% 100% 57% 9 Element 2 Element 2 Findings 10 Pennsylvania's NPIAS Airports 64 Pennsylvania NPIAS Airports 10 Primary Commercial Service NPIAS Guiding Principles • Does the airport have sufficient runway length to accommodate the most demanding aircraft that regularly use the airport? • Does the airport have room to expand if necessary? • Is the airport compatible with surrounding development? 5 Non-Primary Commercial Service 12 Reliever 37 General Aviation 11 Case Study Decision Tree No Not NPIAS Eligible Yes Public Use Airport No Yes Meets Alternative and/or Heliport Criteria Yes No Yes Adheres to guiding principles No • 10 Based Aircraft • >30 Minutes to Nearest NPIAS Airport NPIAS Eligible Note: Airports that are AIP grant obligated can be NPIAS-eligible 12 Case Study Recommendations Notes: Recommendations are based on existing conditions and may be reconsidered if local changes justify such actions Except for designated relievers, NPIAS airports must be publicly owned to be eligible for AIP (federal) funding ID OwnerShip Based Aircraft Nearest NPIAS Airport (min) Meets Primary Criteria Meets Guiding Principles Grant Obligated Now In NPIAS Recommended for NPIAS Carlisle N94 Private 58 25-30 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Cherry Ridge N30 Private 41 30 Yes No No Yes Yes1 Sky Haven 76N Private 29 30-35 Yes No No No No Mid-State PSB Public 8 30-35 No No Yes Yes No2 Ebensburg 9G8 Public 5 25 No No Yes Yes No2 Deck 9D4 Private 37 30-35 Yes Yes No No Yes Pennridge N70 Private 50 15-20 No Yes No No No Penn’s Landing Heliport P72 Private 4 30 No N/A No No Yes Case Study Airports (8) new site is needed as Cherry Ridge cannot expand to accommodate it’s design aircraft 2 These airports are presently in the NPIAS because of grant obligations 1A 13 NPIAS Airport Coverage • The GIS-based map depicts statewide coverage by existing AIP-eligible NPIAS airports based on 30-minute drive time contours • This map also ties Pennsylvania’s NPIAS airports to the: Proposed Core Transportation System Tier 1 and 2 airports Proposed Core Transportation System Economic Centers Population centers greater than 40,000 • This map illustrates that: Every major population and economic center is adequately covered by a NPIAS airport Every county has at least partial coverage by a NPIAS airport 14 NPIAS Airport Coverage 15 NPIAS Airports & the SFY 07/08-10/11 Four Year Plan Findings Commercial Service Advanced Intermediate Amount of FYP Allocated to Each Classification $16.3 million1 $20.4 million $43.3 million Number of Airports/Percent of State System 15 airports 11% of State System 14 airports 10% of State System 22 airports 16% of State System Amount allocated to Capacity $3.0 million $18.3 million Amount allocated to Safety, Security & Standards $13.2 million $17.8 million Amount allocated to Planning & Environmental $622,000 $790,000 Amount allocated to Reconstruction $3.4 million $6.2 million 1 This amount reflects the state funding used to match AIP projects and to fund non-FAA eligible projects. It equals $3.5 million per year for four years plus $2.3 million from the FYP 16 NPIAS Airports & the SFY 07/08-10/11 Four Year Plan Findings Commercial Service Advanced Intermediate Percent of FYP Allocated to Each Classification 2.9%1 25.1% 53.2% Number of Airports/Percent of State System 15 airports 11% of State System 14 airports 10% of State System 22 airports 16% of State System Percent allocated to Capacity 3.7% 22.5% Percent allocated to Safety, Security, & Standards 16.3% 21.8% Percent allocated to Planning & Environmental 0.8% 1.0% Percent allocated to Reconstruction 4.2% 7.6% 1 This percent reflects the $2.3 million programmed in the FYP. It does not include the $3.5 million per year that the BOA uses to match AIP projects. 17 Element 2 3 Findings Element 3 Findings 18 Airport Demand/Capacity Ratios 19 Project Benefits Analysis – Basic Components • Define the annual service volume (ASV) of individual airports and the system as a whole • Determine the incremental operational gain (contribution) from specific projects in terms of increased ASV • Weight projects at airports with higher demand levels more than at airports with lower demand levels • Recognize sponsors who demonstrate a higher level of readiness to implement projects 20 System Contribution Calculator – Calculates: • Cost per increased annual operation – for increased demand and operational benefit • Cost per weighted increased annual operation • Weighted system contribution for operational gains • Sponsor and project readiness using a readiness checklist 21 System Contribution Calculator – Test Cases Project Airport Old Rwy New Rwy Costs Clarion County/AXQ - Rwy 6-24 Includes extension of parallel taxiway 4,100 x 75 5,000 x 75 $1,441,112 Butler County/BTP - Rwy 8-26 Includes extension of parallel taxiway 4,005 x 100 4,805 x 100 $4,929,394 Penn Valley/SEG - Rwy 17-35 Includes extension of parallel taxiway 3,700 x 75 4,760 x 75 $5,120,500 22 System Contribution Findings – “System Contribution Calculator – Calculator” Test Case 23 Element 2 4 Findings Element 4 Findings 24 Implementation Timelines by Project Type Project Type Implementation Range Average New runways 6 – 12 years 9.5 years Runway extensions 5 – 10 years 7.5 years New passenger terminals 5 – 9 years 7 years Terminal expansions 4 – 8 years 6 years New taxiways 3 – 6 years 4.5 years Taxiway extensions 2 – 5 years 3.5 years Roadway access improvements 5 – 9 years 7 years New NAVAID development 3 – 6 years 4.5 years Land acquisition/obstruction removal 2 – 5 years 3 years New parking apron 2 – 4 years 3 years Pavement rehabilitation 1 – 3 years 2 years New fuel storage facilities 2.5 – 5.5 years 4 years New airport buildings 2 – 5 years 3.5 years 25 Implementation Timelines by Project Purpose 1 Project Purpose Implementation Range Average Capacity 4.5 – 13.5 years 9 years Environmental 2 – 6 years 4 years Planning 2 – 5 years 3.5 years Reconstruction 5.5 – 11.5 years 8.5 years Safety and Security 4.5 – 9.5 years 7 years Standards 5.5 – 11.5 years 8.5 years Other N/A 7 years1 The typical project duration for “Other” projects was assumed to be the average of all the average durations or 7 years 26 Ideal Funding Levels – Four Year “Demand” • The total sum (federal, state, and local) of the capital improvement needs for the four year period from SFY 2007/08 through 2010/11 is $249.3 million • This was considered the four-year statewide “demand” for funds for airports in all classifications AIP1 ADP2 Approved Unapproved Approved Unapproved $76.4 million $120.1 million $19.1 million $33.7 million $196.5 million $52.8 million $249.3 million 1 Only 2 includes Airport Improvement Program (AIP) projects for airports in the State Block Grant Program. Includes Aviation Development Program (ADP) projects only; TAP/Capital Budget projects not included. 27 Ideal Funding Levels – Needs by Purpose Project Purpose Funding Percent Safety, Security & Standards $139.3 million 56% Capacity $42.5 million 17% Reconstruction $43.3 million 17% Planning & Environmental $15.2 million 6% Other $9.0 million 4% Total $249.3 million 100% 28 Ideal Funding Levels – SFY 2007/08 thru 2010/11 1 Purpose Four Year Demand ($ million) Average Duration (years)1 Duration divided by four (years) Four Year Demand divided by Duration/4 ($ million) Safety, Security & Standards $139.3 8.4 2.10 $66.2 Reconstruction $43.3 8.5 2.13 $20.4 Capacity $42.5 9.0 2.25 $18.9 Planning & Environmental $15.2 4.0 1.00 $15.2 Other $9.0 7.5 1.88 $4.8 Total $249.3 $125.5 Percent 50.3% The average duration for “Safety, Security, & Standards” and for “Planning & Environmental” projects is a weighted average of the timelines for the individual project purpose categories 29 Ideal Funding Levels - Recommendations • The recommended “realistic” or “ideal” four year funding level equals $125.5 million • Compared to the approved 2007 FYP = $76.4 AIP + $19.1 ADP = $95.5 million = 76% of “ideal” • BOA should target between 80-90% of the realistic funding level in each FYP which equals: – $100 to $113 million every four years – $1.2 to $4.4 million more per year than the 2007 FYP • This equals 50% of the funding “demand” over any four year period • This amount does not include the four-year $20 million Aviation Transportation Assistance Program (assumed at $5 million per year) 30 Next Steps • Finalize report, technical summary, and brochure • SASP Update Briefings for Airports – East & West • Complete project documentation by January 31 31 PENNDOT Multi-Modal Planning State Aviation System Plan Update 2007 AIRPORT SPONSOR BRIEFING December 2007 and January 2008 32