Mather Airport Master Plan

1
Mather Airport Master Plan
Airfield Alternatives Workshop

• Prepared for
• Sacramento County
• Board of Supervisors
• August 7, 2002
• www.sacairports.org

AAAE562.ppt
2
Discussion Agenda
3
Overview Administration
4
Master Plan Objectives
Overview Administration

• Identify on-airport facility requirements to meet
  near- and long-term aviation demand
• Vision and roadmap
• Balance
• On- and off-airport facilities
• Operations vs. environment
• Project costs vs. funding capacity
• User need vs. community concerns
• Mather areas of emphasis
• Backup runway
• On-airport land uses
• Costs and funding sources
• Community / user acceptance
• Environmental factors

5
System Policy Plan
Overview Administration

• Board of Supervisors workshop and resolution
  Oct. 16, 2001
• Two potential roles
• Dedicated air cargo airport with some General
  Aviation
• Potential for air cargo hub with some General
  Aviation
• No impacts without feasible mitigation
• Villages of Zinfandel
• Villages of Zinfandel potential school site
• Independence at Mather
• Rosemont High School site

6
Schedule and Work Flow
Overview Administration
7
Public Involvement
Overview Administration

• Mather Master Plan Working Group
• Airport users and tenants
• Community, special interest group, and local
  business members
• Professional planning representatives
• Technical resources
• Meeting 1 April 5, 2002
• Meeting 2 May 30, 2002
• Public Workshops
• Folsom June 3, 2002 Folsom High School
• Rancho Cordova June 4, 2002 Mills Middle
  School

8
Summary of Questions/Comments Received
Overview Administration

• Questions
• What causes demand (growth rates) for air cargo /
  general aviation?
• Do the forecasts consider upgrades and
  improvements?
• Will facility improvements increase operations?
• How have other airports addressed similar issues?
• What factors are used to generate noise exposure
  contours?
• What are the impacts/characteristics of a West
  Coast sort hub?
• Comments
• Flight patterns and noise in Folsom and El Dorado
  Hills area
• Changing flight tracks
• Use of NAVAIDS to direct traffic
• Additional (alternative) runway
  locations/extension
• Operational restrictions
• Potential conflicts with Rosemont High School site

9
Inventory Data
10
Airport Land Uses and Facilities
Inventory Data
Runway 4R-22L 11,301 x 150 feet ILS Runway
22 Runway 4L-22R 6,040 x 150 feet Visual
approach
Runways and Taxiways
Air cargo Air Cargo Apron (40 acres) North Apron
(15 acres) General aviation (73 acres) Designated
RON hardstand
Aircraft Parking
Open (1,380 acres)
Airfield (890 acres)
Non Aviation (143 acres)
GA (107 acres)
Air Cargo (93 acres)
Support (14 acres)
Other Uses (123 acres)
11
Mather Forecast Summary
Inventory Data
Master Plan Forecast
Historic Base Range High Range

• 2000 2001 2006 2021 2006 2021
• Air freight (x 1,000 tons)
• Freight 68 59 117 196 139 292
• Mail 100 51 18 29 20 32
• Total 168 109 135 225 159 324
• Annual change (35) 4.3 3.7 7.8 5.6
• Aircraft operations
• Air carrier cargo 11,666 7,634 7,300 10,600 8,600
  15,300
• Commuter cargo 8,858 7,238 9,600 13,600 11,300 19
  ,500
• Air taxi 6,291 6,655 6,500 6,800 6,500 6,800
• General aviation 47,940 50,010 54,000 70,000 54,0
  00 70,000
• Military 6,316 12,030 7,300 7,300 7,300 7,300
• Total 81,071 83,567 84,700 108,300 87,700 118,
  900
• Annual change 3.1 0.3 1.2 1.5 1.8

PAL 1
PAL 2
12
Historic and Projected Daily Departures
Inventory Data
2000 2001
PAL 1
PAL 2

• Air carrier cargo 16 10 10 21
• Commuter cargo 12 10 13 27
• Air taxi 9 9 9 9
• General aviation (a) 33 34 37 48
• Military 9 16 10 10
• Total 79 80 79 115
• (a) Excludes touch-and-go operations (50 of
  total)

140
Air carrier cargo
120
100
Commuter cargo
80
Average daily departures
Air taxi
60
General aviation
40
20
Military
-
2000
2001
PAL 1
PAL 2
13
System Financing Capacity
Inventory Data
HIGH
210 m
Mather
1,190 m
HIGH
LOW
Otherairports
120 m
110 m
LOW
650 m
640 m
70 m
370 m
Years 1-10
Years 1-20
14
Meteorological Conditions Monthly Distribution
of IFR Conditions
Inventory Data
Ceiling lt 1,000 ft or Visibility lt 3 mi 8.0
annually (92 VFR) 25 winter months 0.1
summer months 2.7 fall/spring months
IFR Conditions
15
Meteorological Conditions Average January Below
CAT I Conditions
Inventory Data
16
Environs and Noise Conditions
Inventory Data
Villages ofZinfandel
RosemontSchool Site
Independenceat Mather
Existing 2001 CNEL 60 noise exposure area Mather
CLUP CNEL 60 noise exposure area Mather Airport
Policy Area
17
Facility Requirements
18
Requirements Annual Service Volume (ASV)
Facility Requirements
ASV
ASV
Hourly Capacity
Good weather (VMC) PAL 1 - 92 ops / hr PAL 2 -
88 ops / hr Adverse weather (IMC) 57 ops / hr
Forecastdemand
PAL 1
PAL 2
19
Airfield Requirements
Facility Requirements

• Backup runway
• Runway 4L-22R too short for efficient air cargo
  operations
• Accommodate operations when Runway 4R-22L not
  operational
• Separate general aviation and air carrier
  operations
• Instrumentation
• Primary Runway
• CAT III anticipated to be complete 2005/6
• Backup Runway
• Potential for Runway 4R-22L to become inoperable
  during adverse weather conditions unlikely
• Potential long-term non precision approach
• Marketability and reliability

20
Daily Air Cargo Operations
Facility Requirements
2001 PAL 1 Pal 2

• Ops Ops Ops
• A-300/310 1 4 3 14 6 14
• B-727 9 44 2 10 -- --
• B-747 1 3 0.5 2 1 2
• B-757 6 29 10 50 26 63
• B-767 2 10 2.5 12 6 14
• DC-8 1 6 1 4 -- --
• DC-9 -- -- 0.5 2 -- --
• DC-10 -- -- 1 4 2 5
• MD-11 -- -- 0.5 2 1 2
• Total 20 100 21 100 42 100

21
Arrival Runway Length PAL 1 2
Facility Requirements
22
Departure Runway Length PAL 2
Facility Requirements
23
Airfield Alternatives
24
Alternatives Development
Airfield Alternatives
PAL 1 (Near-term)
PAL 2 (Long-term)
Runway 4L-22R Basic Upgrade General utility to
air carrier Visual approach
No change
BasicUpgrade
Upgrade/Extend Runway 4L-22R Visual
approach Extend to the southwest No change to
pavement strength
Runway 4L-22R Instrument Approach Non precision
approach Lengthen to the southwest Strengthen
pavement
RunwayExtension
New Outboard Runway 4R-22L 8,600-foot
length Precision approach
No change
SouthRunway
25
Alternative 1 Basic Upgrade
Airfield Alternatives
Runway Protection Zone CLUP Arrival / Departure
Zone
26
Alternative 2 (Long-term) 8,000-Foot Runway
4L-22R
Airfield Alternatives
Near-term airfield pavement Long-term airfield
pavement Arrival Runway Protection Zone Departure
Runway Protection Zone CLUP Arrival Zone CLUP
Departure Zone
27
Alternative 3 (Long-term) 8,500-Foot Runway
4L-22R
Airfield Alternatives
Near-term airfield pavement Long-term airfield
pavement Arrival Runway Protection Zone Departure
Runway Protection Zone CLUP Arrival Zone CLUP
Departure Zone
28
Alternative 4 (Long-term) 9,000-Foot Runway
4L-22R
Airfield Alternatives
Near-term airfield pavement Long-term airfield
pavement Arrival Runway Protection Zone Departure
Runway Protection Zone CLUP Arrival Zone CLUP
Departure Zone
29
Alternative 5 8,600-Foot South Runway
Airfield Alternatives
Long-term airfield pavementRunway Protection
Zone CLUP Arrival / Departure Zone
30
Noise Exposure ComparisonExposure to 60 CNEL
PAL 2
Airfield Alternatives
ACRES
Off-Airport

• PAL 1 (Near-term)
• Alt 1 Basic upgrade 3,502 1,849
• Alt 2 7,200 Visual 3,505 1,851
• Alt 3 8,500 Visual 3,504 1,851
• Alt 4 9,000 Visual 3,520 1,869
• Alt 5 South Runway --- ---
• PAL 2 (Long-term)
• Alt 1 Basic upgrade 3,795 2,079
• Alt 2 8,000 Inst. App. 3,812 2,100
• Alt 3 8,500 Inst. App. 3,811 2,100
• Alt 4 9,000 Inst. App. 3,802 2,093
• Alt 5 South Runway 4,123 2,215

Total
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative
3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
31
Potential Off-Airport Land Uses Impacts
Airfield Alternatives

• Villages of Zinfandel
• No significant noise exposure increases
• No federal or state approach protection effects
• Independence at Mather
• Minor noise exposure increase under Alternative 5
• No federal or state approach protection effects

32
Potential Off-Airport Land Uses Impacts
Airfield Alternatives

• Rosemont High School site
• No significant noise exposure increases
• Independent analysis initiated by SCAS following
  May 30, 2002 Working Group meeting
• Shutt Moen Associates
• Applied latest Caltrans methodology (criteria
  published Jan. 2002)
• Analysis conclusion impacts caused by
  alternatives no different from current situation
• July 26, 2002 meeting with Caltrans staff
• Mitigation options (physical and operational)
  will be reviewed in master plan
• Subsequent opportunity to comment in EIR/EIS

33
Accommodation of Future Fleet Mix
Airfield Alternatives
Departures ( MTOW)
Arrivals 90 95 100

• PAL 1 (Near-term)
• Alternative 1 Basic Upgrade 68 62 12 0
• Alternative 2 7,200 Visual 87 85 70 50
• Alternative 3 8,500 Visual 99 94 88 65
• Alternative 4 9,000 Visual 99 99 90 67
• Alternative 5 South Runway N/A N/A N/A N/A
• PAL 2 (Long-term)
• Alternative 1 Basic Upgrade 70 70 8 0
• Alternative 2 8,000 Non precision 98 96 80 7
  0
• Alternative 3 8,500 Non precision 98 98 92 7
  0
• Alternative 4 9,000 Non precision
  98 98 94 70
• Alternative 5 South Runway 98 98 92 70

34
Development Costs ( millions)
Airfield Alternatives
Runway construction
(a) Environmental Asphalt (b) Concrete
mitigation

• PAL 1 (Near-term)
• Alternative 1 Basic Upgrade 4 4 --
• Alternative 2 7,200 Visual 13 17
• Alternative 3 8,500 Visual 23 30
• Alternative 4 9,000 Visual 26 34
• Alternative 5 South Runway --- --- ---
• PAL 2 (Long-term)
• Alternative 1 Basic Upgrade --- --- ---
• Alternative 2 8,000 Non precision 35 41
• Alternative 3 8,500 Non precision 35 41
• Alternative 4 9,000 Non precision 37 43
• Alternative 5 South Runway 96 125
• (a) Includes generalized land
  acquisition costs to meet FAA requirements.
  Additional land
• acquisition for approach
  protection adds approximately 6.0 to 8.0
  million.
• (b) Results in higher annual maintenance
  costs.

35
Findings and Next Steps

• South runway not required for capacity or
  redundancy purposes
• Areas should be preserved for future airfield
  development
• Land uses designated for potential aviation and
  non-aviation development
• Implementation of non precision approach on
  backup runway
• Cost prohibitive
• Not required given CAT III ILS capability
  provided on primary runway
• Need vs. desire
• Airfield alternatives for backup runway (visual)
• Upgrade and extend Runway 4L-22R to 7,200 feet
  16.0 million
• Increase length from 7,200 feet to 8,500 feet
  12.0 million
• Increase length from 8,500 feet to 9,000 feet
  5.0 million

36
Mather Airport Master Plan
Questions Public Comments Presentation
available on-line at www.sacairports.org