MIA MOVER – Post 9/11 Project Strategy

Sanjeev N. Shah (1), P.E., M.ASCE (Primary Contact) Kamel Mokhtech (2) , P.E., Ph.D Carlos F. Bonzon (3), P.E., Ph.D Richard Garcia (4) Guillermo Carreras (5), AIA Gasser Douge (6), P.E., M.ASCE

(1) Associate Principal , Lea+Elliott, Inc., 7200 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 510, , FL 33126; PH 305 500 9390; Fax 305 500 9391; [email protected] (2) Manager of Engineering Projects, Lea+Elliott, Inc., 7200 Corporate Center D rive, Suite 510, Miami, FL 33126; PH 305 500 9390; Fax 305 500 9391; [email protected] (3) Interim Aviation Director/Assistant County Manager, Miami -Dade County, Stephen P. Clark Center, 111 N.W. 1 st Stre et, Miami, FL 33128, PH (305) 375 1451; Fax (305) 375 1501; [email protected] (4) Project Manager, Miami -Dade Aviation Department, P.O. Box 592075, Miami FL 33159; PH 305 869 1040; Fax 305 876 8067; Rgarcia@miami -airport.com (5) Program Manager, Dade Aviation Consultants, P. O. Box 594040, Miami, FL 33159; PH 305 876 8335; Fax 305 876 0467; Gcarreras@miami -airport.com (6) Proje ct Coordinator, Dade Aviation Consultants, P. O. Box 594040, Miami, FL 33159; PH 305 869 1953; Fax 305 876 0467; Gdouge@miami -airport.com

Abstract

The MIA Mover (previously known as the MIC/MIA Connector) is an elevated Landside Automated (APM) system that is being implemented at Miami International Airport (MIA) by the Miami -Dade Aviation Department (MDAD). The MIA Mover will provide a convenient and reliable means for transporting passengers between a centrally located MIA station and the (MIC). The MIC includes the Consolidated Rental Car Facility (CRCF), which will be one of the first elements of the MIC to become operational.

After 9/11, with the impacts on the Aviation Industry and MIA in particular, efforts were undertaken to re -evaluate the overall MIA Capital Improvements Program in conjunction with the uncertainty presented by business and economic conditions. As part of this evaluation, the MIA Mover was modified to operate in a “straight configuration,” with approximately 1.25 miles of dual lane guideway, a single MIA Station and the MIC Station (compared to approximately 1.75 miles of dual lane guideway and 3 MIA stations) to support ridership commensurat e with 39 million annual passengers in the 2015 time frame (compared to 48/55 MAP previously) and approximately 48 million annual passengers in the 2033 time frame. These modifications resulted in a reduced project budget of $254 million (compared to $400 million previously).

Commitments for the operational readiness date for the MIA Mover, necessitated that the entire project (infrastructure and operating system) be procured under a single Design -Build -Operate - Maintain contract (inclusive of infrastructure and operating system). Draft documents were issued for an Industry Review in the second quarter of 2004 to solicit industry input. This paper examines the process wherein various project parameters such as ridership, alignment, need for compatibilit y with future airport needs and other operational considerations were considered in support of the appropriate policy decisions by MDAD that resulted in the re -configured MIA Mover and its contract requirements. Background – Pre 9/11

Planning for the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) and MIA Mover (formerly known as the MIC/MIA Connector) projects began in the early 1980s when the Miami -Dade Aviation Department (MDAD) developed strategies for relieving congestion at Miami International Airport (MIA) passenger terminals and for allowing further expansion to support growth in keeping with the economic needs of the Greater Miami and South region. Earlier attempts at resolving issues related to area -wide congestion had focused on construction of an addit ional airport. However, construction of runway facilities in the Everglades and planning for the Air Carrier Reliever Airport were halted for environmental reasons. Soon thereafter, a report prepared by the Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization recommended the development of a multi -modal transportation facility (the MIC) adjacent to MIA to improve regional access to the Airport. These findings were later reaffirmed in MDAD’s MIA Master Plan and Strategic Plan which indicated that the MIC and MIC/MIA Connector are needed to improve regional access to the airport and the traffic flow within the terminal area. Follow-on efforts by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in cooperation with various County and Federal agencies gave rise to the establishment of the Miami Intermodal Center program.

The MIC development program is managed by FDOT and was planned as a regional transfer point for different ground transportation modes, including and rail transit systems, commuter and intercity transit systems. The MIC will serve as a Remote Ground Transportation Hub for MIA by providing access to regional transit systems, a consolidated rental car facility, remote parking and courtesy to hotels and off -airport/off -site rental ca r companies. The MIA Mover will be implemented by the Aviation Department and will provide the vital link between the remote MIC and MIA.

Pre 9/11, the MIA Mover was planned to be an Automated People Mover (APM) system traveling on a fixed guideway in fr ont of MIA passenger terminals to transport passengers between the terminals and the planned MIC. With the beginning of passenger service, rental car and hotel courtesy buses and regional transit bus service were to be transferred to the MIC, thereby enhan cing the ground transportation/landside access to Miami International Airport by relieving traffic in the passenger terminal areas, terminal curbfronts and on the main access roadways into MIA. The initial and ultimate alignment configuration and the inter face between the MIA Mover station and the airport terminals is illustrated in Figure 1.

Ground transportation access to MIA is one of the critical factors that can limit the capacity of MIA. Due to its landlocked nature and lack of real estate to supplem ent existing roadway systems and terminal curbfront, the MIA Mover is the only viable solution to enhance the ground transportation/landside system in a manner that will allow MIA to continue growth to support the population and economic growth of the Grea ter Miami and South Florida region. It was scheduled to begin operation by the middle of year 2006. Without the MIA Mover, MIA =s capacity will be capped at 55 million annual passengers (MAP), the expected saturation capacity of the facilities being impleme nted in the current CIP; this figure was projected to be attained by year 2010 by the original Masterplan, that subsequently was updated and projected an air

Page 2 of 13 passenger traffic in 2010 to be 48 MAP; the facility saturation to 55 MAP will be deferred by a fe w years.

Pre 9/11 - Initial and Ultimate Configuration

Station Platform Plan

Station/Terminal Interface

Figure 1: MIA Mover – Initial and Ul timate Loop Configuration – Pre 9/11

Effects of 9/11

The events of September 11, 2001 do not have any precedence in United States history nor in aviation industry history. In addition to the tragic loss of human life, there was a tremendous impact on the economy and security consciousness. The aviation industry was, perhaps, hardest hit, with new and evolving security regulations being implemented at airports almost overnight. Air passenger traffic dropped substantially and only recently has started reach ing the pre September 11, 2001 levels.

Airport capital improvements programs are generally funded through bonds backed by Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) that are charged to the passengers utilizing the airport. The drop in air passenger traffic coupled with the uncertainty in future economic conditions severely impacted the financing and bonding capability of airports for their capital improvements programs.

Page 3 of 13 Post 9/11 MIA Capital Improvements Program Re -Evaluation

After 9/11, with the impacts on the Aviation Industry and MIA in particular, efforts were undertaken to re -evaluate the overall MIA Capital Improvements Program in conjunction with the uncertainty presented by business and economic conditions. Miami International Airport’s air passenger traffic is split, almost evenly, between domestic and international traffic, and a $5.4 billion Capital Improvements Program (CIP) was already underway. The MIA Mover was an important landside access improvement part of this overall program. There was an urgent need to evaluate the viability of the CIP with due consideration of the economic impacts on the airline industry also. There was concern that maintaining the CIP at the pre 9/11 level, with the reduced air passenger traffic and the uncertain fore cast of future economic conditions, would result in untenably high costs to airlines to operate at MIA. Cost containment was a key consideration in evaluating the priority of the CIP elements.

Air passenger traffic forecasts were also re -evaluated. The evaluation indicated that MIA air passenger traffic would likely reach 39 million annual passengers in the 2015 time frame (compared to the previous forecast of 48 million annual passengers in the 2010 time frame).

As part of this evaluation, the MIA Mover was modified to operate in a “straight configuration,” with approximately 1.25 miles of dual lane guideway, a single MIA Station and the MIC Station. The ridership was evaluated and reduced commensurate to the reduced air passenger traffic forecasts; however, the ultimate system capacity was established to support the saturation capacity of the airport terminals that would be completed as part of the current CIP (approximately 48 million annual passengers expected to be reached in the 2033 time frame). Figure 2 illustrates the current configuration of the MIA Mover.

Central Collection Plaza

North Terminal CRCF

MIC Station South Terminal MIA Station

Hatching – ROW for alignment optimization

Page 4 of 13 Figure 2: MIA Mover Configuration – Post 9/11

Re -Evaluation Process and Considerations

The County has executed a Joint Participating Agreement with FDOT committin g to the implementation of the MIA Mover project to connect MIA to the MIC. The JPA includes a commitment that the MIA Mover would become operational no later than 2 years after the completion of the Consolidated Rental Car Facility (that is part of the MIC). The CRCF is the initial element of the MIC that was expected to become operational in the 2004 time frame (pre 9/11) and is now expected to become operational in the 2007 time frame. The delay in the completion of the CRCF is tied to the economic im pacts of 9/11 on the rental car companies and the uncertain business forecasts.

As part of the CIP, there are two major terminal projects underway. One is the North Terminal project (intended for the One World Alliance airlines) that is expected to handle approximately 55% of the air passenger traffic and will be completed in the 2007 time frame. The second is the South Terminal project (intended for the Star Alliance airlines) that is expected to handle approximately 25% of the air passenger traffic and this is expected to be ready in the 2006 time frame.

The evaluation of the MIA Mover was taken in several steps. The first tier evaluation was global in nature to help identify potential cost saving options while retaining flexibility for MIA in terms of operations, customer service and the on-going CIP evaluation relative to other projects. The first tier analysis resulted in the selection of the center alignment as the preferred option; the second tier, detailed evaluation, was then performed to esta blish the project configuration and requirements, procurement approaches and schedules that would facilitate the County meeting its commitments.

First Tier Evaluation – Concept Level

The first tier evaluation occurred immediately following 9/11 and was largely completed by the first quarter of 2002. Options considered in this evaluation are briefly described below:

Partial and phased implementation – This concept considered implementing the original loop alignment configuration in smaller operable segm ents, thus considering the potential for deferring some of the capital costs while leaving open the flexibility to, in the future, complete the system as originally envisioned. The following minimum operable segments (MOS) were considered:

Page 5 of 13 • MOS 1 – Build the system from the MIC to the MIA North Station. This option however, was not considered viable since it would have required all MIA passengers to deboard at the North Station and created an in -equity in the level of service to airline passengers depending on which airline/alliance they were destined to/from. Additionally, existing terminal and roadway configurations did not support the required size of the station to handle all the passengers, including their bags and bag carts.

• MOS 2 – Build the sys tem up to the Center Station. Although this did address the space considerations, the cost savings relative to implementing the complete system, up to the South Station were not considerable. Additionally, the designs for future expansion (of the infrast ructure) had to be considered as an upfront cost to assure that expansion could occur in the future, within the landlocked Central Terminal Area.

• MOS 3 – Build the system up to the South Station, but without the Center Station, which would be constructe d in the future to time with the future improvements in the Central Terminal Area concourses. Although this option provided equity in level of service to the passengers destined to the North and South Terminals (accounting for upwards of 80% of the air tr affic), the potential cost savings were very minor and thus this option was discarded.

Equity to the air passengers, potential cost savings and constructability and maintenance of traffic considerations (in the future) when the major air terminals were re ady for passenger service made these concepts not attractive.

Alternate Alignment option – The current center alignment configuration was developed as part of this option. The MIA Station was located in between the parking garages, equidistant from the different air terminals/concourses at MIA. Also, this configuration mitigated future expansion considerations and future constructability and maintenance of traffic considerations. The following issues were considered as part of this evaluation:

• Passenger trip times and circulation corridors to access to/from the MIA station and the terminals.

• MIA Station locations and configurations

Different station locations and configurations were considered. These included different station elevations such as at an elevation commensurate with the terminal level 4 (same as the original loop configuration), at the terminal level 3 (to match the existing moving walkway systems and pedestrian bridges connecting the parking garages to the terminals) and at ground lev el. The ground level location disrupted the parking garage operations and would have severe impacts on the revenue collection system and was thus discarded. The level 3 location provided the best circulation corridor access between the station and the te rminals while eliminating an additional vertical movement (from the level 4 location to the terminal vertical circulation cores at level 3).

Different station configurations that were considered include a 3-platform configuration

Page 6 of 13 (to segregate boarding and de-boarding passengers), a 2-side platform configuration and a center platform configuration. There is limited space available between the parking garages (approximately 88 feet clear) with an operational roadway system (at grade level) providing acce ss/egress from the garages. A 3-platform configuration required additional space and would have resulted in disruption to the parking garage operations, its vertical circulation cores and loss in parking spaces. Additionally, life safety code considerati ons due to the difference in occupancy between a station and a parking garage would have increased the requirements and costs. The 2-side platform configuration did not provide equity to the passengers – 55% of the passengers are destined to/from the Nort h Terminal and 25% of the passengers are destined to/from the South Terminal – and passengers would be more prone to wayfinding confusion.

The exact location of the station was further driven by the need to clear the newly completed Central Collection Pla za (the access/egress location from the parking garage revenue collection system). Based on known technology constraints (minimum radii, switch requirements, geometric constraints), preliminary alignments were established to assure that the site specific constraints and the station location would be able to accommodate multiple technologies without compromising performance and ride quality.

Passenger trip times, based on the level 3 location, were determined for passengers destined from the MIC to various locations within the MIA terminals. These trip times were computed for the various station locations and configurations and provided to the Aviation Department in support of a policy determination. A summary comparison of the passenger trip times from th e MIC Station to the MIA terminal (for different classes of passengers) for the center alignment and the original loop alignment is provided in Table 1.

TABLE 1 - DISTANCE AND TRIP TIME COMPARISON

(FROM MIC STATION TO TERMINAL VERTICAL CORE (VCC)) (INCLUDES TRAIN TRIP TIME)

(PASSENGERS WITH BAG CARTS) Center Alignment Loop Alignment Type of Passenger (MIA Station: West Location - Pre 9/11 Side platforms) Type Pax Type Distance Trip Time Distance Trip Time (per Exhibit) (Station to VCC) (MIC to VCC) (Station to VCC) (MIC to VCC) (feet) (minutes) (feet) (minutes) 1 1145 (350) 12.96 395 (0) 8.70 NT DOMESTIC 2 800 (220) 10.09 505 (140) 9.62 3 1085 (400) 12.46 805 (320) 12.12 ST DOMESTIC 4 1505 (720) 15.96 1000 (470) 16.23 ST INT'L 5 850 (250) 10.50 350 (0) 10.82 ST DOMESTIC 6 1165 (430) 13.13 665 (180) 13.44 NT INT'L 7 800 (325) 10.09 560 (185) 11.35 E INT'L 8 985 (530) 11.63 165 (90) 8.81

Based on the above studies, the Aviation Department selected the Center Alignment option. The

Page 7 of 13 Sta tion was located at an elevation commensurate with terminal level 3, in a center platform configuration. Preliminary order of magnitude evaluation indicated potential cost savings of upwards of 25% over the original loop alignment.

During March 2002, the Aviation Department presented the findings and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, and the Center Alignment was officially adopted for the MIA Mover project.

Development of Project Requirements – Second Tier Evaluation

The original loop alignment with 3 MIA stations close to each other and the 4th MIC station approximately a mile away was not attractive to the application of cable -propelled technologies in either shuttle modes (inadequate capacity due to longer distances and trip times) or multi -train operations due to the un-equal station spacings. The selection of the Center Alignment with its 2 stations created opportunities for the application of cable -propelled technologies to the project. This potential for increased competition could further increase the potential for cost savings.

The second tier evaluation was the process through which the project requirements were established. The following key issues were considered:

• Ridership and line capacity requirements

• Operational configuration

• Maintenance and Storage Facility requirements

• Procurement Strategy

Ridership and Line Capacity requirements

The MIA Mover ridership will consist mainly of the Non-Resident Origination and Destination (O&D) passengers (tourists) who visi t the Greater Miami area, and employees. Rental car customers are the largest single ridership component. The Non-Resident O&D passengers make up approximately 32.5% of the annual MIA passenger volume, or approximately 50% of the total Origination and Dest ination passengers who access MIA through its landside ground transportation system. Mode splits are generally between those passengers accessing the MIC through rental cars, private automobiles and transit modes.

Air passengers are usually accompanied w ith significant amounts of baggage. Unlike airside APM systems (which are located post -security and passengers travel unencumbered with their baggage), baggage handling is a critical issue on landside APM systems. Pre 9/11 planning efforts had included consideration of the long range plans for the MIC and MIA, which included potential MIA landside functions, including check -in and bag claim, to be located at the MIC. A secure bag tunnel and conveyance system would transport bags between the MIC and the MI A airside for both originating and terminating passengers. In this scenario, the passengers would be largely unencumbered with baggage and the landside system would operate similar to an airside system. During 1999/2000, a

Page 8 of 13 committee of industry (airlines, hotels, cruise -lines, rental car companies, etc.) was convened by Miami -Dade County to solicit input on critical issues and develop guidelines for optimized solutions. This Modal Opportunities for Viable Enterprise (MOVE) Committee completed its work and provided guidance to MIA and FDOT on possible optimization of the program; these suggestions have been considered as part of the programming and planning work.

The phased implementation of the MIC and the MIA facilities requires that baggage handling on- board the MIA Mover be accommodated. The economic and operational considerations due to 9/11, in effect, further pushed out the time horizon during which the MIC long range plans would likely be implemented. This in concert with the air traffic projections at MIA not exceeding the saturation capacity of the terminals within the 25 year design life of the MIA Mover, resulted in a policy decision that baggage handling on-board the MIA Mover be accommodated through its service life.

Since MIA passenger traff ic is largely tourism related, the typical MIA passenger bag profile is significantly larger than at other gateway US airports. The typical baggage profile (number and sizes of baggage) for the users of different modes of ground transportation was developed from a terminal curb -front survey during 1998/99. Different types of vehicles (private autos, taxi -cabs, courtesy buses, airport/seaport buses, etc.) were randomly targeted to collect information, such as, number of passengers boarding or deboarding, n umber and types/sizes of luggage and the dwell times at the curbside. The survey information was obtained at various locations on the departure and arrival curb -front as well as at remote bus parking facilities. The passenger bag profile was correlated to the ground transportation mode used by the passenger to access MIA and “tied” to the ridership component on the MIA Mover. The average space requirements, based on the expected ridership components, were determined to be approximately 7 square feet. In co mparison, passengers who travel unencumbered with only carry on baggage, typically occupy 3.5 square feet.

Ricondo, who had previously developed MIA’s Strategic Air Terminal Study, was tasked to perform an independent validation of the ridership requirem ents and passenger space allocations, based on the anticipated evolution of the CIP, the current forecast for phased implementation of the MIC and other regional transportation modes at the MIC, and the revised air passenger traffic projections. This vali dation reaffirmed the passenger space allocation requirements based on the distribution of the forecasted ridership between the different components.

Passenger space requirements were developed and the system capacity demand and performance were evaluated based on square feet per hour per direction (sfphpd) instead of the traditional person per hour per direction (pphpd) to normalize for the different space requirements for each type of passenger. Reasonable assumptions regarding the usage of baggage cart s by different types of passengers were made as part of the analysis. The initial line capacity for the purposes of the initial fleet purchase was tied to the 2015 ridership projection (approximately 7 years after the beginning of passenger service). The ultimate line capacity for the purposes of establishing the line capacity expansion requirements was based on the long range projection close to the 25 year design life of the APM System.

Key baggage handling issues include vehicle boarding/deboarding ti mes (station dwell times), vertical movement of baggage and baggage carts and safety considerations, both on-board the

Page 9 of 13 vehicles and on the station platforms and vertical circulation elements both during normal conditions and emergency evacuation. These iss ues were considered in prior planning work and were revalidated.

Operational Configuration

The established line capacity requirements were used to evaluate the ability of different classes of technologies to be applied to the project and also identify operational configurations that may accommodate the maximum number of potential technologies without compromising the airport’s needs. The goal was to maximize competition while satisfying the airport’s requirements.

It was determined that the initial and ultimate line capacities could be achieved by either cable - propelled or self -propelled technologies. Depending on the technology, either shuttle and/or pinched loop operations could be supported.

The MIC Station configuration is a 3-platform configura tion. All arriving trains are desired to berth at the platform closest to the CRCF lobby to provide easy and equitable access to all rental car company booths. The other platform berth position would then be utilized as a failure management platform. Th is operational configuration requires switching ability between different tracks and there are costs associated with this.

By comparison, a dual lane shuttle mode could meet the capacity requirements and also offer some potential cost savings. A policy direction established a preferred operating mode (which required switching at the MIC Station) and an alternate dual lane shuttle mode, both being acceptable. To account for the inherent desirability of one operational configuration (and higher potential costs), the procurement and selection approach was to be made into a combination of technical merit and price (thus providing best value to the County).

This policy direction further increased the potential for competition since more suppliers (and technologies) could now meet the project requirements.

Maintenance and Storage Facility

A potential for further cost savings (for the initial phase) was the requirement for the Maintenance and Storage Facility. The operational configurations and the initial lin e capacity and fleet requirements indicated that an on-line Maintenance and Storage Facility would be sufficient. Future line capacity and fleet expansions may necessitate the expansion of the M&SF into a larger on-line facility or an off -line facility. The optimum option is technology dependent, and this was a key consideration into the development of the procurement strategy.

Procurement Strategy and Cost/Schedule/Risk Considerations

Key policy decisions related to the alignment, the ridership/line capacity requirements, operational configuration and the maintenance and storage facility supported the ability for

Page 10 of 13 different classes of technologies (cable -propelled (large and medium size) and self propelled, including monorail) to be successfully applied to the MIA Mover project. Further planning and programming work in support of these policy decisions was performed and used as the basis for developing the updated project cost estimates. Based on this, a project budget for the capital aspect of the pro ject was established at approximately $254 million, inclusive of allowance accounts, project soft costs including Owner management and oversight costs and escalation to mid -year construction. This compares to the $400 million project budget that was estab lished for the original pre 9/11 alignment.

A competitive range was established between $160 million and $200 million, exclusive of the allowance accounts and Owner’s management and oversight costs. The range was developed to reflect the range of technologies from economical technologies (and their infrastructure requirements) to full performance technologies that could be applied to the project.

Pre 9/11, the MIA Mover was to be procured utilizing a split approach. Under this approach, the Infrastructu re would be procured through the traditional design/bid/build approach, and the Operating System would be procured through a Design/Install/Operate/Maintain approach. This approach was compatible to the original loop alignment, which due to its inherent nature and project requirements, was largely limited to self propelled technologies.

The operational readiness date for the MIA Mover is driven by the JPA between the County and FDOT, which established that the MIA Mover would be operational within 2 yea rs after the completion and opening of the Consolidated Rental Car Facility (anticipated in the 2007 time frame). The split approach, wherein the Infrastructure and Operating System are separately procured, was analyzed to determine its ability to meet th e schedule requirements. A further consideration in the split approach was the widely different infrastructure requirements between the different classes of technologies that could be applied, and the risks associated with managing the interfaces or estab lishing the project Infrastructure design criteria in the absence of the technology.

A full turnkey (Design/Build/Operate/Maintain or DBOM) approach wherein the Infrastructure and the Operating System are procured through a single contract was evaluated. This approach was selected for the procurement of the MIA Mover project for the following reasons:

• Lower capital costs due to increased competition among available APM Systems (different classes of technologies) • Faster completion of the capital project (a time savings of approximately one year over the other approach) • Reduced Owner risks since the Contractor has a single source of responsibility for infrastructure and operating system procurement • Reduced potential for delays due to integrated and centrali zed project management and a cost effective infrastructure design/compatibility with the operating system.

The DBOM approach was fully endorsed by an airport Peer Review Group that included representatives from Dallas Fort -Worth International Airport, th e Port Authority of New York &

Page 11 of 13 New Jersey, Los Angeles International Airport, Greater Toronto Airport Authority, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority and San Francisco International Airport. Further, the Miami Airlines Affairs Committee also support ed the DBOM method of delivery for the MIA Mover.

Development of Procurement Documents

The MIA Mover procurement approach is open to a range of viable APM Operating System technologies that can meet the specified (minimal) project performance parameters. The range of viable technologies, that could be applied to the MIA Mover project, falls into two main categories; (a) full performance self -propelled technologies (that have been largely service - proven) that due to their inherent capabilities will excee d, in some cases, the minimum contract requirements; and (b) economical technologies, such as cable -propelled technologies, (that due to the minimal project parameters may require some degree of innovation) and will likely meet the minimum contract require ments.

Competitive procurement is a primary goal for the MIA Mover procurement process. The full performance technologies, due to their inherent features that, in some cases exceed the minimum contract requirements, are generally more expensive than the economical technologies. Since ranking of proposals will be based on a combination of technical merit and price, it is important that the ranking methodology (representing a combination of technical merit and price) be such that it encourages the range of technology suppliers to view their technologies as viable with a good chance of success, if they propose competitively. If the price weight factor is too high, then it is likely that the full performance technology suppliers will view the process an unfavorable and may not participate – resulting in a loss of competitive environment. Conversely, if the price weight factor is too low, then it is likely that the proposal prices will be higher.

The project technical requirements/specifications are perform ance -based requirements that allow each potential supplier to evaluate the ability and degree of adaptation, necessary for them to apply their proprietary technology to the project. These requirements were developed with due consideration of the inherent characteristics (including limitations) of the different classes of technologies in an effort to maximize competition.

Draft procurement documents were issued for Industry Review during the summer of 2004. Industry review comments were appropriately considered in the development of the final procurement documents that are a part of the Request for Proposals.

The MIA Mover Request for Proposals is scheduled to be advertised by the end of 2004. As such, the development of the procurement documents and as sociated key considerations/policy decisions are considered appropriate for another paper after the completion of the procurement.

Conclusion

Landside access to the airport terminals is typically the capacity limiting factor at most land- locked airport s. Remote ground transportation hubs connected to the airport terminal areas by APM systems are a viable solution that increase the landside access capacity of the airport while providing a high level and quality of service to airport patrons.

Page 12 of 13 The events of 9/11 have had a tremendous impact on the aviation industry and the financial capacity of airports to implement the capital improvements programs that are necessary to meet their projected capacity requirements. It is possible, through a careful evalu ation of each aspect of the airport’s operational requirements (both near term and long term), to perform cost effective value engineering to land-side access APM systems, such that they can be “affordable” within the business constraints while meeting the airport’s operational needs.

It is critical that such value engineering be driven by the airport’s needs, potential cost savings and consideration of benefits/consequences associated with each option and policy decision. For this to be successful, it is very important that consultants (engineers, planners, architects) act fully and solely in their role as the technical experts providing necessary technical input and information in assisting the Owner frame the appropriate policy issues and make the appropriate policy decisions. This approach was found beneficial to MIA in general and the MIA Mover in particular.

Page 13 of 13