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