Mather Airport Master Plan

1
Mather Airport Master Plan
Technical Presentation
Prepared for Sacramento County Board of
Supervisors June 10, 2003
SMF___.ppt
2
Presentation Topics
Overview
Airfield Alternatives Recap
CBOS Workshop Follow-up
Landside, Access, and Circulation Alternatives
Next Steps
3
Master Plan Objectives
Overview Background

• Identify on-airport facility requirements to meet
  near- and long-term aviation demand
• Vision and roadmap
• Balance
• Operations vs. environment
• Project costs vs. airport funding capacity
• User needs vs. community concerns
• Mather areas of emphasis
• Backup runway
• On-airport land uses
• Costs and funding sources
• Community / user acceptance
• Environmental factors
• October 16, 2001 CBOSresolution

4
Schedule and Work Flow
Overview Background
5
Public Involvement
Overview Background

• Technical meetings / planning workshops
• Mather Master Plan Working Group
• Airport users and tenants
• Community, special interest groups, and local
  business members
• Professional planning representatives
• Technical resources (Federal, State, and County
  agencies)
• Public Workshops
• County Board of Supervisors Workshop
• Summary of study progress
• Responses to Working Group and public
  questions/comments
• Study direction

6
Airport Land Uses and Facilities
Overview Background
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 Cargo Apron (40 acres) North Apron (15
acres) General aviation (73 acres) Designated RON
hardstand
Aircraft Parking
Open 1,440 acres
Airfield 925 acres
Non Aviation 150 acres
GA 115 acres
Air Cargo 100 acres
Support 15 acres
Other Uses 130 acres
7
Mather Forecast Summary
Overview Background
Master Plan Forecast
Historic Base Range High Range

• 2000 2001 2006 2021 2006 2021
• Air freight (x 1,000 tons) 168 109 135 225 159 32
  4
• 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
8
Historic and Forecast Daily Departures
Overview Background
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
• Total SMF (b) 208 213
• (a) Excludes touch-and-go operations (50 of
  total) (b) Shown for comparative purposes

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
9
Forecast Financing Capacity(SystemWide)
Overview Background
HIGH
210 m
Mather
1,190 m
LOW
SMF
110 m
640 m
Years 1-20
10
Environmental Constraints
Overview Background
11
Airfield Alternatives Recap
12
Airfield Requirements
Airfield Alternatives Recap

• Backup runway
• Runway 4L-22R too short for efficient air cargo
  operations
• Use when primary Runway 4R-22L is not operational
• Separate general aviation and air carrier
  aircraft
• Instrumentation
• Primary runway CAT III anticipated 2005/6
• Backup runway Various alternatives considered
• Marketability and reliability

13
Alternatives Development
Airfield Alternatives Recap
PAL 2 (Long-term)
PAL 1 (Near-term)
No change
Basic upgrade to Runway 4L-22R General utility
to air carrier Visual approach
Basic Upgrade
Upgrade Runway 4L-22R Non precision
approach Length to the southwest 8,000
feet 8,500 feet 9,000 feet Strengthen
pavement
Upgrade and extend Runway 4L-22R Visual
approach Length to the southwest 7,200
feet 8,500 feet 9,000 feet No change to
existing pavement
Extend Runway 4L-22R
New Outboard Runway 4R-22L Precision
approach 8,600 feet
No change
South Runway
14
Airfield Alternatives Basic Upgrade
Airfield Alternatives Recap
Runway Protection Zone CLUP Arrival / Departure
Zone
15
Airfield AlternativesExtend Runway 4L-22R
Airfield Alternatives Recap
Runway Extension Runway Protection Zone CLUP
Arrival / Departure Zone
16
Airfield AlternativesExtend Runway 4L-22R
(Long-term)
Airfield Alternatives Recap
Near-term Runway Extension Long-term Runway
Extension Arrival Runway Protection
Zone Departure Runway Protection Zone CLUP
Arrival Zone CLUP Departure Zone
17
Airfield AlternativesSouth Runway
Airfield Alternatives Recap
New South RunwayRunway Protection Zone CLUP
Arrival / Departure Zone
18
Airfield Alternatives Key Findings
Airfield Alternatives Recap

• Third runway / south runway
• Not required for capacity or redundancy purposes
• Areas should be preserved for future aviation and
  non-aviation related development
• Implementation of non precision approach on
  backup runway
• Cost prohibitive
• Not required given CAT III ILS capability
  provided on primary runway
• Airfield alternatives for backup runway (visual)
• Upgrade and extend Runway 4L-22R to 7,200 feet
  16.8 million
• Increase length from 7,200 feet to 8,500 feet
  12.7 million
• Increase length from 8,500 feet to 9,000 feet
  3.6 million

19
CBOS Workshop Follow-up
20
August 7, 2002 County Board of Supervisors
Workshop
CBOS Workshop Follow-up

• Decision on airfield alternative deferred
• Questions addressed in White Paper
• What runway use policies could be implemented at
  Mather?
• Where will runway use policies be documented and
  when do runway use policies become official?
• If you build a backup runway, how do you keep it
  from becoming a second runway?
• What would be the change in single-event noise
  levels in the Villages of Zinfandel if
  Runway 4L-22R were extended / upgraded and used
  as a backup runway?
• Is the need to provide a backup runway worth the
  investment?
• What are the consequences if a backup runway is
  not provided?
• What are potential backup runway funding sources?

21
Runway Use Programs (or Policies)
CBOS Workshop Follow-up

• Runway use programs and / or flight track
  management measures
• Regulate direction and frequency of aircraft
  operations
• Restrict the use of runways to particular types
  of aircraft (noise capacity)
• Actual use typically differs
• Weather conditions
• Construction, maintenance, or incidents close
  runways
• Air traffic demand
• Aircraft unable to follow procedures due to
  physical constraints
• Formal policies
• Defined in Letter of Understanding (LOU) with FAA
• Participation is mandatory
• No known formal runway use programs in effect in
  the United States
• Informal policies
• Implemented via Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
  with FAA
• Participation voluntary but adherence good
  (aircraft under ATCT direction)
• Can be identified in Master Plan, Environmental
  Assessment (EA), Environmental Impact Statement
  (EIS), or Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part
  150 study

22
Consideration of Mather Options
CBOS Workshop Follow-up

• Intent of runway use and flight track policies
• Reduce aircraft noise exposure
• Minimize overflights of land uses in immediate
  environs
• Rosemont High School
• Villages of Zinfandel
• Independence at Mather
• Key factors
• Prevailing winds Runways 22R/L use
  approximately 98 of the time
• Evening and nighttime operations most intrusive
• Air carrier aircraft are most significant
  contributors to noise exposure
• Backup runway would provide safety, efficiency,
  and redundancy for large aircraft
• Scheduled closures of Runway 4R-22L
• 8-10 hours per month for routine maintenance
• 5-7 days per year for major maintenance
• Unscheduled closures range up to 72 hours
  annually (historical data)

23
Potential Runway Use Options
CBOS Workshop Follow-up
Selection and approval will require additional
analysis, and may necessitate formal review in an
EA or EIS and FAA approval
24
Potential Flight Track Management Options
CBOS Workshop Follow-up
Both Runways Operational
One Runway Operational
Selection and approval will require additional
analysis, and may necessitate formal review in an
EA or EIS and FAA approval
25
Projected Sound Exposure Levels Villages of
Zinfandel
CBOS Workshop Follow-up
Arrivals on Runway 22L
Arrivals on Runway 22R
Sound level range Site in decibels (dB) 1 64
81 2 70 87 3 71 88 4 73 90
Sound level range Site in decibels (dB) 1 75
93 2 82 101 3 82 100 4 81 100
4
3
2
1
Notes The decibel, a logarithmic measure of the
magnitude of sound, is used to measure noise
events since the human ear is sensitive to an
extremely wide range of sounds. Sound levels
range from 0 dB, which is approximately the
threshold of hearing, to 130 dB, which is the
threshold of pain.
26
Economic Impact of MatherAir Cargo Activity
CBOS Workshop Follow-up

• Role 1 - County would construct a backup runway
  and provide a CAT III ILSon the primary
  runwayAir cargo carriers would continue to
  operate from Mather
• Role 2 - Airside facility improvements would not
  be providedAt least one cargo carrier would
  relocate from Mather by 2005Another carrier
  would relocate prior to 2020

High Range Base Case Hub Scenario
2005 2020 2005 2020 Additional cargo under Role
1 (tons) 8,000 63,000 78,000 250,000 Additional
jobs under Role 1 30 180 220 700 Total output
(millions) 5.5 32.8 21.1 68.5 Total aggregate
income (millions) 2.3 18.4 14.3 45.3
Summary - not providing facilities at Mather to
accommodate air cargo operations (Role 2) would
result in the loss of the economic benefits
27
Potential Backup Runway Funding Sources
CBOS Workshop Follow-up

• Airport Systems internally generated capital
• User fees and rentals/leases
• Airport Enterprise Fund
• Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Revenue
• Collected at International (SMF)
• Use at Mather would require approval of airlines
  at SMF
• Bond proceeds
• General airport revenue bonds (GARBs) - secured
  by airport revenues
• Bonds backed either solely by PFC revenues or by
  PFC revenues and airport revenues

28
Potential Backup Runway Funding Sources
CBOS Workshop Follow-up

• Federal grants (AIP)
• Funded by aviation user taxes and administered by
  FAA
• Entitlement funds - apportioned based on total
  passengers and cargo tonnage
• Discretionary funds - distributed by FAA based on
  the ranking of the airports projects in relation
  to other projects deemed important for improving
  the national air transportation system
• Letter of Intent (LOI) - FAA assurance that
  project will be funded
• Benefit / Cost Analysis (BCA) must demonstrate
  that projects benefits (delay reduction, capacity
  enhancement, safety, and security, etc.) exceed
  project costs
• Unlikely that backup runway at Mather would meet
  FAA BCA guidelines
• Local / State grants
• Airport tenants and users

29
Landside, Access, and Circulation Alternatives
30
Assessment of Existing Facilities
Landside, Access, and Circulation

• Air cargo
• Additional warehouse / sort facilities
• 20 of 55 acres utilized
• Insufficient parking
• General aviation
• Hangars in need of renovation / upgrade
• Shortage of close-in hangar space
• Insufficient vehicle parking
• Recent ramp renovation
• Airport support
• Facility locations
• Fuel farm access
• Access and circulation
• Off-site congestion
• Accommodation of heavy trucks

Storage/maintenance hangar Planned for
demolition New construction / renovation
31
Air Cargo Requirements
Landside, Access, and Circulation

• User input
• Peak period activity
• Future facility size
• Numbers of employees

Facility Existing PAL 1 PAL 2
Freight warehouse space (sq ft) 89,400 85,000 135
,000 Jet aircraft parking (spaces) 20 18-20
22-25 Feeder aircraft parking (spaces) 6-8 10-12
24-27 Cargo apron (acres) 55 30 40 GSE parking
area (sq ft) 168,000 180,000 225,000 Employee/cus
tomer parking (spaces) 150 275 350
32
General Aviation Requirements
Landside, Access, and Circulation

• Forecast based aircraft
• Fleet mix
• Peak period activity
• Aircraft storage facilities
• Consistent with role
• Industry trends

Facility Existing PAL 1 PAL 2
Itinerant aircraft parking Spaces 42 65 100
Apron (acres) 19 8 12 Based aircraft parking
Spaces 65 60 55 Apron (acres) 8 5 5 Based
aircraft hangar (sq ft) 220,000 160,000 170,000 Su
pport hangars (sq ft) 50,000 60,000 85,000 Passeng
er terminal General aviation (sq
ft) 2,700 2,700 3,400 Air taxi (sq
ft) 12,000 12,000 12,000 Full Service FBO
() 1 1 1 Vehicle parking (spaces) 200 200 230 Tot
al hangar (sq ft) 270,000 220,000 255,000 Total
apron (acres) (a) 27 18 22
(a) Includes itinerant and based aprons, and
area for maneuvering outside of storage facilities
33
Airport Support and Ground Access Requirements
Landside, Access, and Circulation

• Co-location of airfield and airport equipment
  maintenance facilities
• Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF)
  continuation of Index B
• Weekly fuel capacity

Facility Existing PAL 1 PAL 2
Fuel storage capacity Jet A
(gallons) 1,200,000 600,000 1,250,000 Av Gas
(gallons) 3,000 (a) 3,000 4,000 Airport
admin/operations bldg. (sq ft) 7,200 7,500 7,500 A
irfield maintenance facility (sq
ft) 8,000 8,000 8,000 ARFF (sq ft) 15,500 5,500 5,
500
(a) 12,000-gallon Av Gas tank currently under
construction

• Primary access roads
• On-Airport circulation

34
Guidelines
Landside, Access, and Circulation

• Planning objectives
• Preserve potential for long-term growth and
  future role
• Provide distinct and logical separations between
  uses
• Maximize existing infrastructure investments
• Maximize commercial/industrial land uses for
  revenue generation
• Alternative 1 Minimum Disruption
• Continuation of existing development patterns
• Maximize existing infrastructure and airport
  roadways
• Alternative 2 Linear Concept
• Aviation-related development parallel to airfield
  
• Maximize non-aviation (revenue generating) land
  uses
• Roadway access and circulation
• Increase in semi-trailer truck activity
• Consideration of current County and city planning
  efforts

35
Alternative 1 PAL 1
Landside, Access, and Circulation
Legend
MatherField Rd.Access
Air cargo
General Aviation
Airport Support
MatherBlvdAccess
MacreadyAveAccess
Airfield
Reserve Airfield
Reserve Aviation
Commercial
Non Aviation
ReserveNon Aviation
Environmental Preserve
36
Alternative 1 PAL 2
Landside, Access, and Circulation
Legend
MatherField Rd.Access
Air cargo
General Aviation
Airport Support
MatherBlvdAccess
MacreadyAveAccess
Airfield
Reserve Airfield
Reserve Aviation
Commercial
Non Aviation
ReserveNon Aviation
Extensionto RoutierRoad
Environmental Preserve
37
Alternative 1 Airport Land Uses (Long-term)
Landside, Access, and Circulation
Air cargo 100 100
GA 115 80
Support 15 30
Airfield 925 1,000
Airfield Res. 0 420
Res. aviation. 0 365
Commercial 0 310
Non aviation 150 65
Res. Non Aviation 0 85
Environ. preserve 0 390
38
Alternative 2 PAL 1
Landside, Access, and Circulation
Legend
MatherField Rd.Access
Air cargo
General Aviation
Airport Support
MatherBlvdAccess
MacreadyAveAccess
Airfield
Reserve Airfield
Reserve Aviation
Commercial
Non Aviation
ReserveNon Aviation
Environmental Preserve
39
Alternative 2 PAL 2
Landside, Access, and Circulation
Legend
MatherField Rd.Access
Air cargo
General Aviation
Airport Support
MatherBlvdAccess
MacreadyAveAccess
Airfield
Reserve Airfield
Reserve Aviation
Commercial
Non Aviation
ReserveNon Aviation
Extensionto RoutierRoad
Environmental Preserve
40
Alternative 2 Airport Land Uses (Long-term)
Landside, Access, and Circulation
Air cargo 100 115
GA 115 75
Support 15 25
Airfield 925 965
Airfield Res. 0 420
Res. aviation. 0 305
Commercial 0 395
Non aviation 150 70
Res. Non Aviation 0 85
Environ. preserve 0 390
41
Development Costs ( millions)
Landside, Access, and Circulation

• Alternative 1 PAL 1 PAL 2 Total
• 3rd party funded facilities 23.8 10.7 34.5
• County funded improvements
• Facilities 3.0 1.4 4.4
• Renovations 11.0 --- 11.0
• Site works 7.7 2.2 9.9
• Apron 1.6 --- 1.6
• Roadway 6.5 1.8 8.3
• Subtotal 29.8 5.4 35.2
• Total 53.6 16.1 69.7
• Alternative 2
• 3rd party funded facilities 58.2 10.7 68.9
• County funded improvements
• Facilities 3.0 --- 3.0
• Renovations --- --- ---
• Site works 9.1 2.3 11.4
• Apron 1.6 --- 1.6
• Roadway 8.2 1.4 9.6
• Subtotal 21.9 3.7 25.6

42
Assessment and Evaluation
Landside, Access, and Circulation
Within County Revenue- Phasing Preservation
of funding capacity generating
uses efficiency prior investment

• Alternative 1
• PAL 1 29.8 Yes 460 acres Good Yes
• PAL 2 5.4 Yes 460 acres Good Yes
• Alternative 2
• PAL 1 21.9 Yes 550 acres Difficult Moderate
• PAL 2 3.7 Yes 550 acres Moderate Moderate

Notes 1. Both alternatives accommodate facility
requirements 2. Neither alternative causes
off-airport roadway impacts 3.
Users/stakeholders would accept either alternative
43
Questions/Comments Received
Landside, Access, and Circulation

• Clearways
• Definition and use (Advisory Circular
  150/5300-13)
• FAA comments
• Extension to Routier Road
• Increase in vehicle traffic
• Timing
• Integration into off-airport city/County planning
  efforts
• Maintenance of existing rail spur
• Fire fighting facilities
• Roadway traffic increases

44
Master Plan Completion
Next Steps

• Technical Tasks
• Detailed land use plans
• Cost estimates and CIP
• Financial Plan
• Implementation Plan
• Deliverables
• Airport Layout Plan (ALP)
• Master Plan documentation
• Future Workshops
• August 19, 2003 - Direction on the preferred
  development plan
• November 4, 2003 - Draft Master Plan Approval

45
Mather Airport Master Plan
Questions Comments