Meeting Summary Phoenix Goodyear Airport Master Plan Update Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting No. 3 September 6, 2017 – 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm Phoenix Goodyear Airport Terminal Building Conference Room
Meeting Objective: The purpose of this meeting with the TAC was to provide a project status update, recap the approved aviation demand forecast, review facilities requirements for the Airport, discuss proposed secondary runway locations, related alternatives, and land use configurations.
Attendance:
Committee Attendees Name Organization Ryan Reeves LUX Air Chris Snodgrass Lufthansa Aviation Training USA Inc. Tim Berger Lux Air Jim Stark GYR Tenants Association Terry Brandt FAAS Team Rep/Tenant Andreas Paulick German Air Force Eric Webster Goodyear Police Department Barry Kidd AerSale Scott Zachary Goodyear Tire & Rubber – Haley & Aldrich
Aviation Department Attendees Name Organization Bobbie Reid Aviation Department – Acting Assistant Aviation Director Randy Payne Aviation Department – Planning and Environmental Division Brad Hagen Aviation Department – Phoenix Goodyear Airport Sarah Carter Aviation Department – Planning and Environmental Division Christy Gomez Aviation Department – Aviation Department Curtis Richardson Aviation Department – Facility & Services
Consultant Staff Attendees Name Organization Pam Keidel-Adams Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. Colin Wheeler Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. Thomas Gibson Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. Mary Ortega-Itsell Genesis Consulting Group, LLC Rick Crosman Genesis Consulting Group, LLC
*Called into meeting via conference call
Airport Master Plan – Phoenix Goodyear Airport 1
1. Welcome – Randy Payne welcomed the TAC.
2. Project Team Update – Randy Payne presented changes to the Consultant Project Management Team. Armstrong Consultants remains the prime. Pam Keidel-Adams, Kimley Horn & Associates, will take over the responsibilities of Project Management for the remainder of the MPU. Pam Keidel-Adams (PKA) introduced the Kimley Horn team: Colin Wheeler (CW) and Thomas Gibson (TG).
3. Presentation:
a. Overview: Pam Keidel-Adams provided the TAC with a recap of the aviation demand forecast and facilities requirements. After going over the project work done to date, Colin Wheeler provided a presentation on proposed parallel runway alternatives. After discussion and comment on the proposed parallel runway and other airfield alternatives, the focus shifted to appropriate future land uses for the remaining developable land within the Airport envelope. An interactive activity provided the TAC with an opportunity to use their extensive knowledge to propose various configurations for future land use categories. At the end of the meeting, Randy reminded the TAC of the next meeting, where the recommended airside alternatives and the land use interactive exercise will be presented in their final draft form.
b. Aviation Demand Forecast Overview and Recap: PKA announced that the Aviation Demand Forecast for 2016 GYR Master Plan Update was approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). As part of the approval, the FAA concurred that the Boeing 767 is the design aircraft for the Airport.
Summary tables of Based Aircraft Forecast and Operations Forecast was provided. Discussions included a review of the based aircraft fleet mix projections, with a comment that the 9.63% based aircraft forecast growth for jets had already been exceeded. The current number is twelve. In addition, it was noted that although the air carrier operations have the highest forecasted growth rate, the local GA operations (which reflect the continued growth of the flight schools) are close behind and will require associated facilities development. It was also noted that although, CTC Aviation will vacate their current Goodyear Airport lease at the end of 2017, Lufthansa will either seek another flight school or expand their current operation.
c. Facility Requirements Overview and Recap: Facility requirements represents the infrastructure development needed for the airside, landside, and other support facilities based on the approved aviation forecasts. Summary tables of Aircraft Parking Apron Requirements and Hangar/Structure Requirements were provided. Discussions included: • Current approved forecast for aircraft parking apron needs. The requirements for available parking apron will increased by 80% over the 20-year planning horizon • The MRO, FBO, and flight schools all envision expansion in the near term. • Hangar size requirements will change over the design period, with less need for T-hangar and shade structures, and an increased need for conventional hangers.
Airport Master Plan – Phoenix Goodyear Airport 2
• A recap of the airfield demand/capacity ratio included reviewing the annual service volume (ASV) for GYR. The ASV for GYR was determined using a standard FAA formula along with various assumptions made on behalf of the airport. For GYR, the ASV is estimated to be 275,590 annual aircraft operations. It was noted that typically when operations at an airport reach 60 percent of the ASV, the FAA recommends planning for additional capacity and implementing additional capacity enhancements at 80 percent.
d. Development Alternatives Overview and Results: Colin Wheeler presented an overview of the runway, and airfield development alternatives process, and explained that all alternatives presented were subject to an Alternatives Evaluation Criteria (Criteria), to assure consistency. This criterion addressed critical questions about each Alternatives ability to: • satisfy forecasted demand, • minimize environmental impacts, • facilitate safety in operations, • enhance revenue and/or future development opportunities, • improve airspace efficiency, • minimize impacts to the community, and existing facilities, • and, in general represent the highest and best use of the associated airport property. The Alternatives discussion was divided into two parts with the initial discussion covering potential configurations of a new parallel runway, and latter discussions addressing the airfield alternatives of infrastructure and apron area development. It was emphasized that all proposed alternatives would be contained “on airport”. There will be no expanded recommended “off airport” footprint. Parallel Runway Development Alternatives The parallel runway alternatives centered on the Airport’s ability to accommodate a 5,000’ by 75’ new parallel runway capable of accommodating the existing and future Small to midsize aircraft fleet mix. Alternatives were divided into three categories that included a “No-Build” alternative, an “East Side” development alternative, and a “West Side” development alternative. The “No-Build” alternative was dismissed because taking no action does not satisfy the Airport’s projected future demand requirements. The “East Side” alternative had actually depicted as a 4,300’ parallel runway on a previous ALP. However, part of the RPZ would have been ‘off airport” and would have required substantial relocation of existing facilities if implemented today, it was, therefore, dismissed. The “West Side” alternative depicted the new parallel runway in two different locations identified as the North and South Alternatives, both of which are located west of the existing Runway 3/21.
Runway Alternative 1 – North had a number of benefits including being close to the Airport’s flight schools, having high ATCT visibility for both runway ends, and preserving opportunities for future development on the SW corner of the Airport.
Airport Master Plan – Phoenix Goodyear Airport 3
Notable impacts or disadvantages of the Alternative-1 North include, elimination of development potential on NW portion of the Airport closest to the existing flight schools, reduction in the usable area of the NW aircraft storage area, and required possible relocation of a major existing drainage canal. Additionally, this configuration moves the runway closer to residential areas, cuts off landside access to the SW portion of the airfield, and potentially causes environmental impacts to Bullard Wash.
Runway Alternative 2 – South is depicted in the SW portion of the Airport, also west of existing Runway 3/21. This configuration preserves the opportunity for development of the NW portion of the airfield with access at Yuma Road, moves the runway further away from residential sites, and avoids conflicts with the existing drainage canal.
Notable impacts or disadvantages of Alternative – 2 South include, increased taxiing distance for flight school aircraft and other tenants because of its more southerly location, and reduction of usable area at the existing NW aircraft storage area. In both the North and South Alternative scenarios, the runway RPZ remains within the airport boundary.
Comparisons of the two Runway Alternatives utilizing the Alternatives Evaluation Criteria previously mentioned, favor the selection of Runway Alternative - 2 South, as the overall highest and best use of available airport land, with fewer negative impacts.
Discussions:
• There was general discussion between the TAC, about the locations of taxiways for the new proposed parallel runway. Discussions included the location of midfield taxiways for the proposed parallel runway and whether “high speed” taxiway exits would be appropriate. The committee is interested in seeing more taxiway exits from the parallel runway than were depicted in the graphic. • During discussions on Alternative – 1 North, a safety issues was raised: The proximity of the smelter plant constitutes a hazard if a plane loses an engine on a southern departure. Runway Alternative 2- South was deemed a better option for the engine failure issue. • Runway 21, typical traffic pattern would be left traffic, however with dual operations consideration must be given to right traffic for the new utility runway • General discussions also touched on development of additional flight school facilities and access to the proposed runway, crossing 3-21. • Relocation of helicopter operations was discussed with a possible location in the NW corner of the Airport if runway Alternative 2-South was selected. • The potential relocation of some or all of the larger aircraft parked in the NW aircraft storage area to the general area of the Airport’s MRO was also discussed. • Runway Alternative 1-North: The drainage ditch obstruction will be eliminated within two years when state funding provides for construction costs. Design is complete.
Aircraft parking apron (leaseholders), storage hangars, and commercial aircraft parking aprons develop alternatives
The next step in the analysis of development alternatives involved the rest of the airfield, and aircraft aprons, hangars, and facility development requirements and configurations. The presentation addressed some of the specifics of present and future aircraft parking
Airport Master Plan – Phoenix Goodyear Airport 4
apron requirements, indicating that Flight Schools needed approximately 3 acres, FBO’s approximately 10.5 acres, and MRO’s needed approximately 21 acres to accommodate current and future aviation activities. The alternative analysis also identified the need for 27,000 square feet of aircraft hangar space in various configurations, as well as approximately 40 acres of land required for commercial aircraft parking and storage.
Development Alternative 1 depicts a linear development scenario running from northeast to southwest on the east side of the existing runway, with segregated spaces allocated for each of the activity centers listed above. Flight School area development was noted on the northeast portion of the Airport, future MRO apron expansion was shown immediately to the southwest of the existing MRO hangars, and a large 40-acre commercial aircraft storage apron was shown immediately southwest of the MRO area. Further to the south, a 10.5-acre apron was indicated for FBO development, followed by areas designated for relocated T-hangars and future development.
Benefits of the Alternative 1 configuration include keeping future MRO development adjacent to existing MRO hangars and facilities, and relocating commercial aircraft storage in closer proximity to the MRO’s that service them. The proposed location of the FBO apron provides taxiway access to the existing FBO area, but also caters to existing based aircraft. Relocation of the T-hangar area to the southern portion of the airport fosters appropriate separation between GA and larger itinerant MRO aircraft activity. Terminal relocation could also provide additional flight school aircraft parking, and most of the proposed development is concentrated near existing facilities east of the runway providing for continuity with existing operations and development. However, it was noted that no designated area for relocation of the Terminal Building was indicated on the Alternative drawings.
Notable impacts of Alternative 1 include the costs of the required relocation of the north T-hangars, and relocation of the Terminal Building and other facilities adjacent to the terminal area.
Development Alternative 2 portrays a similar development strategy as Alternative 1 with the following exceptions. The 21-acre MRO apron is extended to the east of the existing MRO apron, and the FBO apron is shifted further to the southwest beyond the proposed T-hangar aprons. The existing north T-hangars are not relocated under this scenario.
Under Alternative 2 future MRO development can occur immediately adjacent to the existing apron and MRO hangars. The cost of relocating the north T-hangars is no longer a factor. Commercial aircraft storage is also moved to closer proximity with the MRO’s that service them. Additional T-hangar development can still occur near the existing south hangar apron, and the proposed FBO apron provides taxiway access to the FBO area and continues to cater to the south hangar area. Terminal relocation could also provide additional flight school aircraft parking, and most of the proposed development is concentrated near existing facilities east of the runway providing for continuity with existing operations and development.
Airport Master Plan – Phoenix Goodyear Airport 5
Notable impacts of Alternative 2 include the costs of relocation of the terminal building and other facilities adjacent to the terminal area, to locations still to be determined, along with relocation and/or removal of certain airfield access roads.
Development Alternative 3 shows a number of variations from the first two alternatives. Provisions are shown for relocated T-hangar development to the northwest corner of the Airport just north of the proposed parallel runway. The new FBO apron and MRO apron are merged into a single 31.5-acre apron located immediately southwest of the existing MRO apron. A reconfigured 40-acre apron for commercial aircraft storage is shown in a more southwestern location immediately north of the south T-hangar apron, and an option still exists for the relocation of the Terminal building in favor of more flight school parking area.
Perceived benefits include the lowering of construction and maintenance costs by merging the FBO, and MRO areas into a single apron area. This action also allows future MRO development to occur adjacent to existing MRO facilities. Relocated T-hangars will have the benefit of utilizing Yuma Road for access; the relocated commercial aircraft storage apron will provide better access for associated MRO activity.
A number of impacts are also noted, including; Alternative 3 configuration will require large commercial aircraft and itinerant aircraft utilizing the south T-hangar apron to share access. The relocation of the north T-hangar area will cause them to become further separated from existing service facilities, and demands on the FBO area may exceed projected facility requirements in the future. Additional costs will be incurred for relocation of the terminal building and other facilities adjacent to the terminal area, necessary to enlarge Flight School parking areas.
A Development Alternatives Comparison Table was shown which ranked the viability of each of the three Alternatives presented in the categories of:
• Satisfies Forecasted Demand • Minimizes Environmental Impacts • Facilitates Safety • Enhances Revenue and Future Development • Improves Airspace Efficiency • Minimizes Impacts to Community • Minimizes Impacts to Existing Facilities
Numeric totals were applied to each category, and totaled at the bottom of the Table. From this exercise, Alternative 1 ranked the highest indicating that this scenario captured the most beneficial development alternative and probably the highest and best use of available airport property. Alternatives 2 and 3 followed with slightly lower scores.
Discussion following the presentation of the Alternatives indicated that the TAC members felt that a sufficient number of additional factors existed to consider development of a 4th Alternative that could merge elements of Alternatives 2 and 3, and incorporate their suggestions.
Airport Master Plan – Phoenix Goodyear Airport 6
Discussions:
• Randy Payne indicated that we are very early in the development process; therefore, TAC members are encouraged to continue offering suggestions for additional alternatives as necessary. • Suggestions were made that under the Alternative 3 graphic, the ATCT should be blocked out of the commercial aircraft storage area rendering to indicate that it was not part of that development. • Some members of the TAC felt that the proposed development on the northwest corner of the airport could be utilized for T-hangars, or possibly for helicopter operations. • General discussions occurred among the TAC members about how the joint FBO and MRO apron should be configured. • TAC requested roadway access options in the Development Alternatives. • TAC asked if the commercial apron would be paved. Answer, yes. • There was agreement that Alternative 3 was a good choice, except for the proposed T-hangar location. • Hangar layout in Alternative 2 was preferred and it was recommended that a combination of Alternative 2 and 3 be developed. • Randy Payne asked if it made sense to separate different types of aircraft activity. Would it be preferred to see airport tenants “grow where they are” these concepts could be included in Alternative 4. • Randy Payne also asked PKA to indicate an actual location for a future relocated terminal building.
e. Land Use Alternatives After the preferred parallel runway, aircraft parking aprons, storage hangars, and commercial aircraft parking apron development alternatives were discussed, appropriate land uses for the remaining developable land were presented. The highest and best use of remaining Airport land discussion was based on alternatives criteria and land use categories established by the City of Phoenix, Aviation Department. The Land Use Categories table established the highest and best uses, based on revenue potential, for permitted land use types. Identified land uses categories complemented criteria that:
• Enhances current and future Airport property • Maximize compatibility with existing facilities • Minimize impacts to community • Satisfy long-term development needs • Provide optimal use of land and existing/future access points.
f. Interactive Activity Using the previously discussed land uses categories and highest and best use criteria, CW and PKA led the group in an interactive exercise that allowed the TAC to voice their ideas and suggestions on future land use alternatives. Two examples of alternatives were presented to give the TAC possible future configurations. Two groups formed and used the airport aerial images to draw possible category groupings. Recurring themes of interactive activity included:
• TAC preferred a combined MRO and FBO apron configuration • NW portion of the airport is prime development area • Future helipad locations need to be considered
Airport Master Plan – Phoenix Goodyear Airport 7
• There is a blast fence and run up area in the airfield area to the southeast. This activity could limit some future development in its present location. The second blast fence located on the northwest side of the Airport is currently not in use. • The Terminal building could be relocated, or reduced to accommodate a future taxilane and aircraft parking for the flight schools. • Airport Management requested that a relocated terminal building location be shown in future alternatives.
4. A review of the next steps was provided, which included a reminder of the upcoming fourth TAC meeting on Friday, September 22, 2017 from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm. The second public meeting will be held on October 5, 2017 at Lux Air from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Upcoming tasks include finalizing the alternatives, holding the public meeting, developing a sustainability evaluation, and beginning the Airport Layout Plan.
5. Meeting concluded at 3.30 pm.
Airport Master Plan – Phoenix Goodyear Airport 8