Chapter Eight: Airport Project Costs And Alternative Scenarios
8. CHAPTER EIGHT: AIRPORT PROJECT COSTS AND ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOSINTRODUCTIONMaintaining and expanding the facilities in Arizona’s aviation system to meet user needs requires significantresources. One of the purposes of this 2018 State Aviation System Plan (SASP) Update is to identify the projectsneeded to maintain a safe and efficient aviation system and to meet the needs of future aviation system users.Chapter 7 introduced several recommended actions to satisfy the current and anticipated system needs.Building upon the actions recommended in Chapter 7, this chapter includes an assessment of the costsassociated with those recommended actions, including meeting facility and service objectives and meetingperformance measures. Additionally, individual airport master plans, Airport Layout Plans (ALPs) with NarrativeReports, and capital improvement plans (CIPs) are analyzed so that the costs to complete projects outside of theSASP Update recommendations are also considered. This chapter provides a holistic look at the costs associatedwith system maintenance and expansion to meet future demand, and two scenarios for implementation.SASP UPDATE-RELATED PROJECT COSTSProjects recommended to meet facility and service objectives and system performance measures are evaluatedin this section. These are projects that are a direct result of SASP Update recommendations. Chapter 5introduced the facility and service objectives established for each airport in the system based on their airportclassification. Chapter 1 presented the 2018 SASP Update performance measures and Chapter 6 presentedcurrent system-wide performance in meeting those measures. The next two sections address the costsassociated with meeting airport objectives and meeting system performance measures, respectively.Facility and Service Objective Recommendation CostsThe facility and service objectives of the 2018 SASP Update represent the components of an airport with thegreatest potential to significantly impact the type and amount of activity that can occur there. The followinganalysis summarizes the system-wide costs associated with meeting (1) airside facility objectives, (2) landsidefacility objectives, and (3) landside service objectives. This does not include the costs associated with meetingsystem performance measures (which is discussed in the section immediately following).Airside Facility ObjectivesTable 1 depicts the airside facility objectives established for airports in each of the six airport classifications.Table 2 presents the costs associated with meeting each airside facility objective and Figure 1 illustrates thecomposition of those needs. Costs associated with meeting runway-related objectives (length, width, surface)represent nearly 70 percent of the total airside facility objective costs, followed by taxiway-related objective(type and width) costs at nearly 18 percent.Chapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-1
Table 1. Airside Facility Objectives by nwayLengthRunway WidthRunwaySurfaceTaxiway Typeand WidthInstrumentApproachProceduresVisual AidsRunway :Minimum Objectives by Airport ClassificationCommercialGeneralServiceAviation (GA)NationalRelieverCommunityConsistent withmaster planConsistent withmaster planConsistent withmaster planConsistent withmaster planTo meet B-IA-IAccommodate75% of largeaircraft at 60%useful loadTo meet ARCstandardsAsphalt/pavedAccommodate75% of smallairplanesMaintainexistingTo meet ARCstandardsAsphalt/pavedAccommodate75% of largeaircraft at 90%useful loadTo meet ARCstandardsAsphalt/pavedConsistent withmaster planConsistent withmaster planFull parallelWidth per ARCFull or partialparallelWidth per ARCTo meet ARCstandardsAsphalt/paved(desired)Full or partialparallel,connectors, orturnaroundsWidth per ARCTo meet red)Near-precision(minimum)Rotating beaconLighted sion(minimum)Rotating beaconLighted )MIRL/MITL(minimum)ALSNear-precision(desired) Nonprecision(minimum)Rotating beaconLighted isionNon-precision orcirclingNoneRotating beaconLighted windconeSegmentedcircleREILsVGSIsMIRL/MITLRotating beaconWind coneSegmentedcircleVGSIsWind sockMIRL/MITLReflectorsALS (desired)NoneNoneNoneALS Approach lighting systemARC Airport reference codeFBO Fixed-base operatorHIRL High-intensity runway lightsHITL High-intensity taxiway lightsMIRL Medium-intensity runway lightsMITL Medium-intensity taxiway lightsREILs Runway-end indicator lightsVGSIs Visual glide slope indicatorsSource: Kimley-HornChapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-2
Table 2. Airside Facility Objective Recommendation Costs 2017-2037RecommendationTotal Estimate CostARCPrimary Runway Length, Width, SurfacePrimary Taxiway Type and WidthInstrument ApproachRotating BeaconWind IndicatorSegmented CircleRunway End Indicator LightsVisual Glideslope IndicatorsRunway LightingTaxiway LightingApproach Lighting SystemAirside Facilities TotalN/A 113,864,850 29,136,030 325,000 125,000 20,000 80,000 560,000 220,000 590,320 16,562,650 3,600,000 165,083,850% of %2.2%100%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithAirside Facility Objective Recommendation Costs2017-2037 ( 165.1M)Other AirsideFacility, 1,920,320, 1%ApproachLighting System, 3,600,000, 2%Taxiway Lighting, 16,562,650,10%Primary Runway, 113,864,850,69%Taxiway, 29,136,030,18%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 1. Composition of Airside Facility Objective Recommendation Costs 2017-2037Chapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-3
Landside Facility ObjectivesTable 3 presents the landside facility objectives established for airports in each of the six airport classifications.Table 4 depicts the costs associated with meeting each landside facility objective and Figure 2 illustrates thecomposition of those needs. Costs associated with meeting the hangar objectives represent over 85 percent ofthe total landside facility objective costs, followed by airport fencing and controlled access objective costs atover 10 percent.Table 3. Landside Facility Objectives by tFencingMinimum Objectives by Airport uildingsN/AAuto ParkingYesAprons lledaccessApron (25% ofbased fleet and75% fortransient)Hangars (75% ofbased fleet and25% rfencing (desired)Apron (40% ofbased fleet and50% fortransient)Hangars (60% ofbased fleet and25% overnight)Apron (50% ofbased fleet and25% fortransient)Hangars (50% ofbased fleet and25% fortransient)ApronN/ATerminal withpilot’s loungeYesYesTerminal withappropriatefacilitiesYesYesYesSource: Kimley-HornTable 4. Landside Facility Objective Recommendation Costs 2017-2037RecommendationAirport Fencing and Controlled AccessApron and Tie-DownsHangarsTerminal BuildingsAuto ParkingLandside Facilities TotalTotal Estimate Cost 12,161,160 1,631,700 101,165,000 0 600,000 115,557,860% of Total10.5%1.4%87.5%0.0%0.5%100%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithChapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-4
Landside Facility ObjectiveRecommendation Costs 2017-2037 ( 115.5M)AutomobileParking, 600,000, 1%Hangars, 101,165,000,88%Apron and TieDowns, 1,631,700, 1%Airport Fencing &ControlledAccess, 12,161,160, 11%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 2. Composition of Landside Facility Objective Recommendation Costs 2017-2037Landside Service ObjectivesTable 5 shows the landside service objectives established for airports in each of the six airport classifications.Table 6 presents the costs associated with meeting each landside service objectives for which a cost could bedetermined. For many of the services, whether it’s a new service provider such as an FBO or air taxi/charter orground transportation, the costs would be borne by the provider. Figure 3 illustrates the composition of thecosts for the landside service needs that have a hard cost associated with them that might be borne by theairport. Costs associated with meeting the deicing objectives represent just over a third of the total landsideservice objective costs, followed by AvGas fueling objective costs at 19 percent.Table 5. Landside Service Objectives by ngFBO*AirTaxi/Charter*Minimum Objectives by Airport ommunityYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesChapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative ScenariosGA-RuralGA-BasicYes2018 Page 8-5
InternationalAircraft Rental*AircraftMaintenance*Avionics Salesand Service*Aircraft Fuel AvGasAircraft Fuel JetADeicingOxygenSnow RemovalGroundTransp.*On-Site RentalCar*Internet AccessPhone AccessRestroomU.S. Customs*Minimum Objectives by Airport sYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesAs neededYesYesYesAs sYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes*Note: These services do not have a hard cost that can be applied, therefore these services were not costed.Source: Kimley-HornTable 6. Landside Service Objective Recommendation Costs 2017-2037RecommendationAutomated Weather ReportingFBO*Air Taxi/Charter*Aircraft Rental*Aircraft Maintenance*Avionics Sales and Service*AvGasJet ADeicingOxygenSnow RemovalGround Transportation*On-Site Rental Car*Internet AccessPhone AccessRestroomsU.S. Customs Facility*Landside Services TotalTotal Estimate Cost 1,200,000N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A 1,650,000 660,000 3,200,000 23,000 1,200,000N/AN/A 60,000 450,000 250,000N/A 8,693,000% of Note: These services do not have a hard cost that can be applied, therefore these serviceswere not costed.Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithChapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-6
Landside Service ObjectiveRecommendation Costs 2017-2037 ( 8.7M)Other LandsideService, 83,000, 1%Deicing, 3,200,000,37%Restrooms, 250,000, 3%Phone Access, 450,000, 5%Avgas, 1,650,000,19%SnowRemoval, 1,200,000,14%Jet A, 660,000,7%AWOS, 1,200,000,14%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 3. Composition of Landside Service Objective Recommendation Costs 2017-2037When the three objective categories are summed (as shown in Table 7 and Figure 4), the costs associated withachieving the airside facility objectives make up nearly 60 percent of the total objective project related costs atover 165 million. Landside facility objectives come in second at over 115 million, or nearly 40 percent. Costsassociated with landside service objectives are much lower at only 3 percent, or just over 8.5 million, howeverit is important to note that a number of the landside service objectives could not be costed, as footnoted inTable 5.Table 7. Objective Category Cost Comparison 2017-2037RecommendationTotal Estimate CostAirside Facility ObjectivesLandside Facility ObjectivesLandside Service ObjectivesTotal 165,083,850 115,557,860 8,693,000 289,334,710% of Total57.1%39.9%3.0%100%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithChapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-7
Objective Category Cost Comparison2017-2037 ( 289.3M)Landside ServiceObjectives, 8,693,000 , 3%Airside FacilityObjectives, 165,083,850 ,57%Landside FacilityObjectives, 115,557,860 ,40%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 4. Total Objective Recommendation Costs by Category 2017-2037Performance Measure Recommendation CostsIn addition to the project costs associated with SASP airports achieving their individual facility and serviceobjectives (approximately 290 million), there are costs associated with projects that are needed to help thesystem achieve the performance measures established in Chapter 1. For a detailed listing of airports currentlynot meeting each of the established performance measures, see Chapter 7.Table 8 summarizes the costs associated with achieving SASP Update performance measures, and Figure 5illustrates the composition of those needs. As shown, pavement maintenance on primary runways to keep themat or above a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 70 equates to more than 62 percent of the costs associatedwith achieving system performance measures, followed by taxiway pavement maintenance at over 20 percent.There are three performance measures that are “capabilities” focused, meaning an airport must have specificfacilities/services in place to meet the needs of the performance measure (such as runway length, weatherreporting, non-precision approach, etc.). Since the facilities and services needed to meet these threeperformance measures are similar and overlap in many cases, a total “capabilities” cost was calculated toaccount for these needs without duplication, amounting to 2.3 percent of the total performance measurerecommendation costs. While duplication between costs to achieve performance measures has beeneliminated, it is important to note that some of the project costs to achieve system performance measuresare also captured in project costs to achieve system facility and service objectives.Chapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-8
Table 8. Performance Measure Recommendation Costs 2017-20372017 Performance MeasureSurrounding Municipalities with Controls/ZoningAirport Disclosure Maps Filed with the ArizonaDepartment of Real Estate (ADRE)Control of all Primary Runway End RunwayProtection Studies (RPZs)*Runway Safety Areas (RSAs) that Meet theStandards for Current ARC*Clear Approaches to the Primary Runway*Adopted Wildlife PlansCurrent (w/in 10 years) Master PlanPCI of 70 or Greater on Primary RunwayPCI of 70 or Greater on Primary TaxiwayPCI of 55 or Greater on ApronAvailability of 24/7 FuelRecognized in Local Comprehensive PlansRecognized in Regional Transportation PlansCapabilities Total(with no duplicate projects or 100%100%No costNo %64%63%61%40%100%36%100%97%97%97%76%100%100%N/A* 5,760,000 56,500,000 850,411,410 282,645,600 137,642,360 720,000No costNo cost0.4%4.1%62.3%20.7%10.1%0.1%0.0%0.0%N/AN/A 31,654,3802.3% 1,365,333,750100.0%Total Performance Measure RecommendationCostsCapability Performance MeasureCapable of Supporting Medical Operations(4,000 ft runway, 24/7 fuel, non-precisionapproach [NPI] approach, weather)All-Weather Runway Population Coverage(paved runway, published instrument approachprocedure [IAP], weather)Facilities to Support Jet Aircraft(5,000 ft runway, published IAP, hangar space, jetfuel)Total Estimate Cost% of Total2017PerformanceFuturePerformanceTarget40%67% 16,620,000N/A90%93% 11,042,500N/A51%70% 30,324,380N/ATotal Estimate Cost**% of TotalNotes: *these recommendations do not have a hard cost that can be applied, therefore these recommendations were not costed**these costs assume all facility and service objectives have been met, but include duplicate projects between “capability”performance measures, and therefore should not be summed.Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithChapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-9
Performance MeasureRecommendation Costs 2017-2037 ( 1.4B)OtherPerformanceMeasure, 6,480,000, 1%RunwayPavementMaintenance, 850,411,410,62%Master Plan/ALP, 56,500,000, 4%Capabilities, 31,654,380, 2%TaxiwayPavementMaintenance, 282,645,600,21%Apron PavementMaintenance, 137,642,360,10%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 5. Composition of Performance Measure Recommendation Costs 2017-2037NON SASP UPDATE-RELATED PROJECT COSTSMost airports conduct annual CIP exercises to evaluate, plan, and budget for needed projects, includingplanning, design, and construction activities. Additionally, airports conduct a longer-term planning exercisewhen they develop or update their airport master plan or ALP and associated narrative. These longer-termplanning documents also serve as a tool to plan and budget for projects needed at the airport. As part of theSASP Update, available master plans, ALPs and associated narrative reports, and airport CIPs were reviewed andall projects documented. The projects recommended to meet facility and service goals and performancemeasures were compared to the projects identified in airport master plans, ALP narrative reports, and CIPs toidentify and remove any duplicate projects from the analysis. The result of this analysis is a listing of additionalprojects that airports are planning for and will need resources to complete, outside of the recommendationsstemming from the SASP Update (objective- or performance measure-related).Table 9 lists these additional non-SASP Update projects by project type, including the costs associated with eachbased on information available from each airport. Figure 6 illustrates the composition of those project costs.Non-SASP Update projects identified for Phoenix Sky Harbor comprise nearly half of these additional identifiedproject costs, followed by terminal projects at 11.5 percent.Chapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-10
Table 9. Non-SASP Update Related Project Costs 2017-2037Project TypeARCRunwaysTaxiwaysIAPVisual AidsAirfield esRoads/Parking/AccessMisc. LandsideWeather ReportingFuel FarmSnow RemovalWash RackRSA/RPZ/Object Free Area (OFA)EnvironmentalLand AcquisitionOtherPost-2022 PHX CIPNon-SASP Update Project TotalCost 7,893,000 404,928,532 306,388,431 6,719,700 13,879,100 13,375,615 5,671,120 320,814,804 55,737,332 811,576,469 67,742,500 169,155,360 98,442,791 2,133,000 49,481,947 1,810,000 2,949,000 13,794,800 62,607,015 485,815,569 728,877,672 3,379,995,000% of 2.4%1.4%0.0%0.7%0.0%0.0%0.2%0.9%6.9%10.4%48.2% 7,009,788,757100.0%Note: Post-2022 PHX CIP costs are assumed to be eligible for federal, state, and local fundingSource: Airport master plans, CIPs, ALPs, Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithChapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-11
Non-SASP Project Costs2017-2037 ( 7.0B)Apron, 320,814,804, 5%Land Acquisition, 485,815,569, 7%Terminal, 811,576,469,12%Taxiways, 306,388,431, 4%Runways, 404,928,532, 6%Other Non-SASP, 1,300,269,952,18%Post-2022 PHXCIP, 3,379,995,000,48%Source: Airport master plans, CIPs, ALPs, Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 6. Composition of Non-SASP Update Project Costs 2017-2037TOTAL PROJECT COSTS AND ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOSBy combining the objective recommendation costs, the performance measure recommendation costs, and theadditional project costs from airports’ long-range planning documents (identified as “non-SASP Update”projects), a total funding needs amount over the 20-year planning period is identified. Table 10 includes thetotal system-wide needs costs between objective costs, performance measure costs, and non-SASP Updateproject costs. As best possible, duplicate project costs were removed. When combined, a total of nearly 8.7billion is needed to implement the SASP Update and non-SASP Update recommended projects across the systemin the next two decades. Figure 7 illustrates the composition of project costs, showing over 80 percent of costscoming from non-SASP Update projects, approximately 16 percent associated with performance measurerecommendations, and just over 3 percent associated with objective recommendations.Table 10. Total System-Wide Project Costs 2017-2037RecommendationTotal Estimate CostObjective Recommended ProjectsPerformance Measure Recommended ProjectsNon-SASP Update ProjectsTotal 289,334,710 1,365,333,750 7,009,788,757 8,664,457,217% of Total3.3%15.8%80.9%100%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithChapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-12
Total System-Wide Project Costs2017-2037 ( 8.7B)Non-SASPProjects, 7,009,788,757,81%Performance MeasureRecommended Projects, 1,365,333,750, 16%ObjectiveRecommendedProjects, 289,334,710, 3%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 7. Total System-Wide Project Costs 2017-2037The costs associated with objective recommendations, performance measure recommendations, and non-SASPUpdate projects varies between airport classifications, as listed in Table 11. Commercial Service-Internationalcomprises nearly 60% of the total system-wide project costs, with each subsequent classification comprisingsmaller and smaller percentages. Figure 8 through Figure 14 illustrate the composition of project costs byairport classification. It is interesting to note that the percentage of non-SASP Update project costs at theCommercial Service-International, Commercial Service-National, and Reliever airports are all substantially morethan the costs of meeting objectives and performance measure recommendations. For GA-Community, it isnearly half non-SASP Update compared to other objectives and recommendations costs from the SASP Update.For GA-Rural and GA-Basic, the SASP Update performance measure recommendations are the largest portion ofthe costs.Table 11. Total System-Wide Project Costs by Airport Classification 2017-2037RecommendationTotal Estimate CostCommercial Service-InternationalCommercial icTotal 5,137,883,372 1,329,059,838 1,062,309,450 668,715,539 298,862,081 167,626,937 8,664,457,217% of Total59.3%15.3%12.3%7.7%3.4%1.9%100%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithChapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-13
2017-2037 Project Cost Summary:Commercial Service – International ( 5.1B)PerformanceMeasures, 154,071,620, 3%Non-SASPProjects, 4,980,798,477,97%Airside Facilities, 2,312,275, 1%LandsideFacilities, 0, 0%LandsideServices, 701,000, 1%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 8. Commercial Service-International Project Costs 2017-20372017-2037 Project Cost Summary:Commercial Service – National ( 1.3B)LandsideServices, 4,114,000, 1%PerformanceMeasures, 396,427,550,30%LandsideFacilities, 0, 0%Airside Facilities, 43,418,450, 3%Non-SASPProjects, 885,099,838,67%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 9. Commercial Service-National Project Costs 2017-2037Chapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-14
Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 10. Reliever Project Costs 2017-20372017-2037 Project Cost Summary:GA-Community ( 668.7M)LandsideServices, 925,000, 1%LandsideFacilities, 8,459,280, 1%Airside Facilities, 28,759,330, 4%PerformanceMeasures, 302,940,670,46%Non-SASPProjects, 327,631,259,49%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 11. GA-Community Project Costs 2017-2037Chapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-15
2017-2037 Project Cost Summary:GA-Rural ( 298.9M)LandsideServices, 2,580,000, 1%LandsideFacilities, 9,807,680, 3%Airside Facilities, 16,736,400, 6%PerformanceMeasures, 181,058,050,60%Non-SASPProjects, 88,679,951, 30%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 12. GA-Rural Project Costs 2017-20372017-2037 Project Cost Summary:GA-Basic ( 167.6M)PerformanceMeasures, 102,236,230,61%LandsideServices, 130,000, 1%LandsideFacilities, 589,000, 1%Non-SASPProjects, 63,703,387, 38%Airside Facilities, 968,320, 1%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 13. GA-Basic Project Costs 2017-2037Chapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-16
2017-2037 Total Project Costsby Airport ClassificationGA-Basic, 167,626,937, 2%CommercialService International, 5,137,883,372,59%GA-Rural, 298,862,081, 4%GA-Community, 668,715,539, 8%CommercialService National, 1,329,059,838, 15%Reliever, 1,062,309,450,12%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 14. Total Project Costs by Airport Classification 2017-2037Since funding resources are limited, two implementation scenarios are examined. The first scenario is one ofmaintenance and preservation. Only the projects needed to meet facility and service objectives or to maintainand preserve existing infrastructure are included. The second scenario is one of expansion and capacity, thatincludes projects that are needed to expand capacity at SASP airports plus all the projects in scenario #1 sincethose expansion projects must also be maintained. Each scenario is described in more detail in the followingsections.Scenario #1 Maintenance and PreservationTable 12 lists the facility and service objective recommended project costs, performance measurerecommended project costs, and any non-SASP Update project costs for maintenance and preservation projectsonly (such as pavement repair, obstruction removal, building improvements, etc.). There are no objectiverecommended projects that fall into this scenario. The majority of the costs needed in this scenario come fromnon-SASP Update projects (nearly 65%) and projects related to performance measures (over 35%). Figure 15illustrates the composition of projects in the maintenance scenario.Table 12. Scenario #1 System-Wide Project Costs 2017-2037RecommendationTotal Estimate CostObjective Recommended ProjectsPerformance Measure Recommended ProjectsNon-SASP Update ProjectsTotal 0 1,195,317,010 2,205,055,300 3,400,372,310% of Total0.0%35.2%64.8%100.0%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithChapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-17
Scenario #1 Project Costs2017-2037 ( 3.4B)Performance MeasureRecommended Projects, 1,195,317,010, 35%Non-SASPProjects, 2,205,055,300,65%ObjectiveRecommendedProjects, 0, 0%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 15. Scenario #1 Project Costs 2017-2037Scenario #2 Expansion (Including Maintenance and Preservation)Table 13 lists the facility and service objective recommended project costs, performance measurerecommended project costs, and any non-SASP Update project costs for expansion/capacity projects (such asrunway extensions, terminal expansion, hangar construction, etc.) and maintenance and preservation projectsfrom scenario #1. Similar to scenario #1, the majority of the costs needed in this scenario come from non-SASPUpdate projects (over 80 percent). Projects related to performance measures comprise nearly 16 percent.Figure 16 illustrates the composition of projects in the expansion scenario.Table 13. Scenario #2 System-Wide Project Costs 2017-2037RecommendationMaintenance andPreservation (fromScenario #1)ExpansionScenario #2 –Maintenance andPreservation andExpansionObjective Recommended ProjectsPerformance Measure Recommended ProjectsNon-SASP Update ProjectsTotalObjective Recommended ProjectsPerformance Measure Recommended ProjectsNon-SASP Update ProjectsTotalObjective Recommended ProjectsPerformance Measure Recommended ProjectsNon-SASP Update ProjectsTotalChapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative ScenariosTotal Estimate Cost 0 1,195,317,010 2,205,055,300 3,400,372,310 289,334,710 170,016,740 4,804,733,457 5,264,084,907 289,334,710 1,365,333,750 7,009,788,757 8,664,457,217% of 0.9%100%2018 Page 8-18
Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithScenario #2 Project Costs2017-2037 ( 8.7B)Performance MeasureRecommended Projects, 1,365,333,750, 16%Non-SASPProjects, 7,009,788,757,81%ObjectiveRecommendedProjects, 289,334,710, 3%Source: Kimley-Horn and CDM SmithFigure 16. Scenario #2 Project Costs 2017-2037SUMMARYAnalyzing system performance in meeting facility and service objectives and system performance measures inprevious chapters highlighted areas with room for improvement moving forward. A holistic view of system-wideneeds is achieved by identifying and costing projects needed to improve performance and evaluating projectsalready planned for by individual airports in their master plans, ALPs, and CIPs. This chapter focuses on thefinancial needs and recommendations that have been discussed in previous chapters, along with non-SASPUpdate related projects. With a total 20-year need of over 8.5 billion– 3.5 billion of which is needed just tomaintain infrastructure already in place—the financial needs of the airports are great. The findings of thischapter will serve as a tool for the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to make the most effective andefficient use of resources, leveraging available funding and sharing the importance of continued federal, state,and local funding to maintain a safe aviation system in Arizona.Chapter 8: Airport Project Costs and Alternative Scenarios2018 Page 8-19
75% of large aircraft at 90% useful load Accommodate 75% of large aircraft at 60% useful load Accommodate 75% of small airplanes Maintain existing Runway Width To meet ARC standards To meet ARC standards To meet ARC standards To meet ARC standards To meet ARC . ARC Airport reference
Part One: Heir of Ash Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Chapter 22 Chapter 23 Chapter 24 Chapter 25 Chapter 26 Chapter 27 Chapter 28 Chapter 29 Chapter 30 .
Cathay Pacific Headquarters Changi Airport Chiang Kai-Shek Airport Dragon Air Headquarters Hong Kong International Airport Incheon Airport KAL Cargo Terminal Ninoy Aquino Airport Savarnabhumi Airport Soejkarno-Hatta Airport TaeGu Airport Wuxi Shuofang Airport Incheon, South Korea Brisbane, Australia Hong Kong, China
that airport capacity expansion decisions need to take into account a multi-airport perspective in assessing the value and timeliness of such investments. Planning scenarios based on calibrated airport choice model are developed to evaluate the market size of each airport. Keywords: Airport choice, Multi-airport region, Airport planning 1.
3) Legazpi Airport Development Project 4) Selected Airports Development Project (Tacloban and Bacolod (Silay)) 5) New Iloilo Airport Development Project 6) Mactan (Cebu) International Airport Project 7) Third Airport Development Project 8) Laguindingan Airport Development Project 9) Davao International Airport Development Project 10) Zamboanga .
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Contents Dedication Epigraph Part One Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Part Two Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18. Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Chapter 22 Chapter 23 Chapter 24 Chapter 25 Chapter 26
DEDICATION PART ONE Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 PART TWO Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 18 Chapter 19 Chapter 20 Chapter 21 Chapter 22 Chapter 23 .
Hollywood Burbank Airport (Airport) is owned and operated by the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (Airport Authority), which is a separate government agency created under a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) executed by the Cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena in 1977 pursuant to Government Code Section 6546.1. Under the JPA, the Airport
Bicol International Airport formerly Development of New Legaspi (Daraga) Airport DOTC-CAAP Region V New Bohol Airport Project DOTC-CAAP Region VII Mactan Cebu International Airport Construction of New Passenger Terminal DOTC-MCIAA Region VII Tacloban Airport Re-Development Project DOTC-CAAP Region VIII Laguindingan Airport Air-Navigation System
