DOCSLIB.ORG

PORT SAN ANTONIO BOARD of DIRECTORS Victoria M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PORT SAN ANTONIO BOARD of DIRECTORS Victoria M Kelly Field at Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I Report September 2017 300 S. Meridian Street Union Station Indianapolis, IN 46225 (317) 786-0461 chacompanies.com PORT SAN ANTONIO BOARD OF DIRECTORS Victoria M. Garcia, Chairwoman Edward J. Moore, Vice Chair Vacant, Secretary Chris Alderete, Treasurer Andrew Anguiano Rolando Bono Victor Landa Bill Mock Alex Nava Juan Solis Dan F. Weingart Marc Whyte PORT SAN ANTONIO STAFF PRESIDENT AND CEO Roland C. Mower VICE PRESIDENT OF ASSET MANAGEMENT Adrienne Cox EXECUTIVE VP, STRATEGIC INITIATIVES/AIRPORT Rick Crider, A.A.E. VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE & ACCOUNTING Pat Cruzen VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMUNICATIONS Paco Felici EXECUTIVE VP , COO & CFO Dan Ferris, CPA EXECUTIVE VP, GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Juan Antonio Flores VP OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT Ramon Flores VP OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Marcel Johnson EXECUTIVE VP OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Jim Perschbach VP OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, EAST KELLY RAILPORT German Rico SENIOR EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT & CEO Caroline Diaz *As of February 2017 Contents Summary: Part I Executive Summary Report Section A: Introduction Section B: Project Background Section C: References Section D: Chronicle of Coordination Section E: Definition of Requirements Section F: Existing Pavement History Section G: Geologic Conditions and Subgrade Investigation Section H: Existing Runway Pavement Section Analysis Section I: Estimated Remaining Pavement Service Life Section J: New Pavement Section Design Section K: Alternative Construction Materials Section L: Part I Conclusion Appendices Appendix A: Technical Workshop Meeting Summary Appendix B: Historic PCI Maps Appendix C: Site Plan of Nearby Borings Appendix D: Existing Pavement PCASE Report Appendix E: Existing Pavement FAARFIELD Report Appendix F: Proposed Pavement FAARFIELD Reports Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I – Final Report September 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Stemming from a recent major maintenance and repair (M&R) project in 2016 on Runway 16‐34 at Kelly Field (SKF), the Port Authority of San Antonio (Authority) as well as the United States Air Force (USAF), encountered significant operational impacts which translated into equally significant financial burdens. The Authority initiated this study in partnership with Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA), Operations Support Squadron (OSS), the 502nd Civil Engineering Squadron (CES) and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) to determine a long‐term solution to eliminate extended runway closures at SKF. This study has been partitioned into two parts. Part I evaluates the existing pavements and endeavors to answer two questions: 1.) Does the pavement require full reconstruction or can future M&R‐type projects address the pavement needs, and 2.) At what point in the future is it required. Part II endeavors to explore and conceive optional courses of action (COA) for construction activities on Runway 16‐34. CHA Consulting, Inc. (CHA) has been retained by the Authority to evaluate, strategize, and recommend opinions of existing pavement condition, address the prominent questions, and recommend construction sequencing strategies which promote minimization, or altogether eliminate, extended runway closures. In March 2017, Part I of this study was presented with general recommendation to pursue full reconstruction of the inner 75’ of roughly 9,000’ of runway. This inner section, referred to as the keel section, exhibits an average pavement condition index (PCI) of 51 based on a 2012 PCI Study provided by AFCEC. AFCEC in conjunction with the 502nd CES has programmed an update to the 2012 PCI Study for some time during the 2017 calendar year. This update is considered critical as it relates to understanding the impacts (good or bad) of the 2016 M&R project. As an aviation industry standard, PCI values below 65 for a runway (60 for a taxiway) typically points to an invasive rehabilitation, but often times full reconstruction. However, AFCEC uses a slightly different scale to determine the level of M&R as well as reconstruction. A PCI value between 50 and 70, according to AFCEC, means continued major M&R (i.e. isolated panel replacement, joint sealant replacement, spall repair, etc. for concrete pavements); whereas, pavements with a PCI below 50 will then be looked at closer to determine the severity of the pavement distresses and the timeline for which reconstruction may occur. PCI values alone do not always make a definitive direction of a pavement project. Funding and available annual allocations, whether military or civilian sourced, can often times mold the definition of a pavement project. In this case, because the USAF owns and operates the flying facilities at SKF, pavement repair and/or reconstruction would most likely be funded through the United States Department of Defense (DoD) through its military construction (MILCON) program. No different than the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while PCI values can justify a project’s eligibility for funding, it also must outrank other facilities in the system for priority. As such, in July 2017, AFCEC and the 502nd CES notified the Authority that the 2017 PCI Study has revealed a significant increase in PCI values for Runway 16‐34, rising from 51 to 64 on average. While Part I of this study recommends reconstruction of the keel section, the USAF intends to continue its major M&R program for Runway 16‐34. The next project is programmed for design in fiscal year (FY) 2019, with construction planned for FY2021. 1 of 32 Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017 REPORT A. INTRODUCTION Kelly Field is a joint use (military/civilian) airfield located on the southwest side of San Antonio at the former Kelly Air Force Base (AFB) site. The United States Air Force (USAF) owns and operates the runway, taxiways, Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility, navigational aids, instrument approaches, and associated systems (the Flying Facilities). It manages the jointly used Flying Facilities through its 502nd Operations Support Squadron (OSS). Military use of Kelly Field includes the USAF hosting flight operations of two tenant commands, the Air Force Reserve’s 433d Airlift Wing, operating the C‐5 Galaxy, and the Texas Air National Guard’s 149th Fighter Wing, operating the F‐16 Falcon. Civilian use of Kelly Field is provided by the Port Authority of San Antonio who has a Joint Use Agreement (JUA) with the USAF for the public civilian use of the Flying Facilities, and who owns adjacent land and facilities dedicated to civilian aviation use. The Port Authority of San Antonio (Authority) is a Texas defense base development authority charged with managing the conversion of portions of the former Kelly AFB to civilian use, while promoting economic health through the attraction and preservation of industry and associated jobs. The 1,900 acres of Kelly AFB property that was transferred to the Authority is now known as Port San Antonio (PSA) which is directly adjacent to the portion retained by the USAF and is officially known as Kelly Field Annex (KFA). Of those 1,900 acres, approximately 640 acres are dedicated to aviation use. The Authority owns and operates exclusive‐use ramp, hangars, and facilities occupied by civil operators; leaseback ramp, hangars, and facilities occupied by the USAF; a public‐use ramp; a fuel farm; connector taxiways; and a variety of buildings and hangars currently marketed to the civil aviation community. Collectively, the Flying Facilities and the PSA land dedicated to aviation use represent the airport referred to as Kelly Field. The three letter airport identifier for Kelly Field is SKF. As a public civil aviation use airport, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has added SKF to its National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), and the Texas Department of Transportation Aviation Division (TxDOT) has also included SKF in its Texas Aviation System Plan (TASP). These inclusions validate SKF’s role as part of a state and national network of airports serving civil aviation needs. B. PROJECT BACKGROUND SKF has a single runway (Runway 16‐34, formerly named Runway 15‐33) that has been in place since 1955. The pavement condition of some of the older concrete sections is deteriorating and may need significant reconstruction or repairs in the foreseeable future. The Authority is concerned of the hardship to its customers should significant runway closures be required for pavement maintenance, repairs and/or reconstruction. It is recognized that long runway closure periods would likewise cause hardships to the military by requiring deployment of its commands. Page 2 of 32 Alternative Landing Surface Analysis Part I ‐ Final Report September 2017 CHA Consulting, Inc. (CHA) has been retained by the Authority to evaluate the existing runway and parallel taxiway pavements (Taxiway A), to determine likely future rehabilitative measures that will be required, and to provide recommendations on how best to mitigate runway closure times for accomplishing the work. CHA is supported by two (2) local consulting firms: Pape‐Dawson Engineers and Arias Geoprofessionals. Collectively, this team is referred to as ‘CHA’ in this report. CHA has been coordinating its efforts closely with the Authority, and the USAF including OSS, the 502nd Civil Engineering Squadron (CES) and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC). There are two parts to this study. This Part I Report evaluates the existing pavements, determines the areas
Load more

Recommended publications
  • June 2011 VIA Metropolitan Transit San Antonio, Texas
    June 2011 VIA Metropolitan Transit San Antonio, Texas 2035 Long Range Comprehensive Transportation Plan Executive Summary Pre Pared for: VIA Metropolitan Transit, San Antonio, Texas Pre Pared by: Jacobs Int assocIa Ion wIth: Ximenes & Associates, RJ Rivera, Town Planning, Connetics Transportation Group, and BBP & Associates June 2011 VIA BOARD OF TRUSTEES LRCTP TEAM TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE h enry r. Muñoz, III, Chair VIA Bus and Rail Strategic Planning Leroy alloway, ARMA b ill barker, aIcP, COSA - Office of rick Pych, Vice Chair and Project Development Staff bill barker, AICP, COSA - Office of Environmental Policy steve P. allison c hristina M. castaño, Environmental Policy spencer r. (bob) hurst, Valley Forest LRCTP Project Manager Mary briseño Julie brown, TxDOT Neighborhood Association arturo herrera Linda chavez–thompson, Secretary Jelynne Leblanc burley, CPS Pamela Morsi Kiel, Alamo Heights Jason rodriguez Resident Gerald w. Lee christine Viña, aIa carmelina rocha davis, COSA - International and Economic rob Killen, City Coucil District I James Lifshutz VIA Bus Operations Development Dept. bianca Maldonado, Monticello Park bill Martin t racy Manning, cPa christina de La cruz, COSA - Public Works Neighborhood Association Lou Miller Jacobs hope olds, Chairwoman, City of Converse Manuel “Manny” Pelaez Mike frisbie, COSA - CIMS Dept. Javier argüello Building & Standards Commission Gavino ramos John Kulpa Jeanne Geiger, MPO Margaret richardson, Office of State VIA LEADERSHIP bill Lieberman Marcus hammer, COSA - Public Works Representative Jóse Menéndez Mike Mcanelly Keith t. Parker, AICP, President/CEO richard higby, Bexar County - Michael roberts, People Against roland a. Lozano, Deputy Director Jimi Mitchell Infrastructure Services Dept. Corruption Lee brian d.
    [Show full text]
  • To Read a PDF of the Public Draft Plan, Click Here
    SA TOMORROW SUB-AREA PLANNING: PORT SAN ANTONIO AREA REGIONAL CENTER PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT PLAN – MAY 19, 2021 Acknowledgements Mayor Planning Department Consultant Team Ron Nirenberg Bridgett White, AICP, Director MIG, Inc. Rudy Niño, Jr., AICP, Assistant Economic & Planning City Council Director Systems, Inc. Roberto C. Treviño, District 1 Bobbye Hamilton MOSAIC Jada Andrews-Sullivan, District 2 Patricia Renteria Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Rebecca J. Viagran, District 3 Erin De La Rosa Auxiliary Marketing Dr. Adriana Rocha Garcia, District 4 Chris Ryerson, AICP Services Shirley Gonzales, District 5* Priscilla Rosales-Piña, AICP Ximenes & Associates Melissa Cabello Havrda, District 6 Iris Gonzalez BowTie Ana Sandoval, District 7 Jacob Floyd, AICP Manny Peláez, District 8 Micah Diaz Special Thanks John Courage, District 9 Clint Eliason, AICP District 4 City Council Staff Clayton Perry, District 10 Brenda V. Martinez District 5 City Council Staff * Planning and Community Development Iris Gonzalez Susan Guinn, Office of the Committee Chair Sidra Schimelpfening City Attorney Heather Yost City Manager's Office Carlos Guerra II Public Works Department Erik Walsh, City Manager Shepard Beamon Transportation Roderick Sanchez, Assistant City Channary Gould, Port San DepartmentEconomic Manager Antonio Area Regional Development Center Plan Project Department Planning Commission Manager Joint Base San Antonio Christopher Garcia, Chair Sarah Serpas, AICP Port San Antonio Connie Gonzalez, Vice Chair Ana Villarreal VIA Metropolitan Transit George Peck, Pro-Tem Jennifer Sheppard San Antonio River Authority Michael Garcia, Jr. Joshua Jaeschke Texas Department of Transportation Dr. Samer Dessouky Julia Carrillo John Jackson Matthew Proffitt Meredith Siegel SA Tomorrow Sub-Area Planning: Port San Antonio Area Regional Center TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
    2014 Comprehensive Annual San Antonio, Texas Financial Report Years Ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 Prepared by the Fiscal Management Division Steven J. Lange Vice President Fiscal Management/CFO VIA Metropolitan Transit San Antonio, Texas 2014 Youth Art Contest Best of Show winning poster by Paola Flores, 8th grade, Tejeda Middle School 2 Table of Contents Section 1 – Introductory Letter of Transmittal ............................................................. 5 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting............................. 19 VIA Board of Trustees ........................................................ 20 – 21 Organizational Chart ............................................................ 22 VIA Service Area ............................................................... 23 Section 2 – Financial Independent Auditor’s Report ..................................................... 25 Management’s Discussion and Analysis .............................................. 29 Basic Financial Statements Statements of Net Position .................................................... 46 Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position .......................................................... 48 Statements of Cash Flows ..................................................... 49 Notes to Financial Statements .................................................. 51 Required Supplementary Information Schedule of Funding Progress – Unaudited ......................................... 87 Notes to Required
    [Show full text]
  • Inland Ports: Economic Generators in Texas?
    Texas Freight Advisory Committee Inland Ports: Economic Generators in Texas? August 22, 2013 Texas Freight Advisory Committee Inland Ports: Economic Generators in Texas? Background U.S. businesses compete in a global environment in which access to international markets through multimodal transportation systems is regarded as critical to ensuring their competitiveness. In the global environment, “the performance of supply chains is vital to shippers, not only for the sake of bringing goods to market, but because logistics itself has become a source of market advantage” (Cambridge Systematics, Inc., n.d.). One of the outcomes of improved supply chain management is facilities—i.e., inland ports—designed specifically to capitalize on multimodal transportation systems. What Is an Inland Port? An inland port has been defined as “a site located away from traditional land and coastal borders with the vision to facilitate and process international trade through strategic investments in multi-modal transportation assets and by promoting value- added services as goods move through the supply chain” (Prozzi et al., 2002). By this definition, well-established inland ports: • tend to be large regional centers serving domestic and international markets; • facilitate international trade and expedite shipments in and out of the United States; • have multimodal capabilities and good access to interstate and state highway systems; • have Foreign Trade Zone status; • serve niche markets, which tend to involve higher-valued commodities; and • have access to sufficient labor and skills (Prozzi et al., 2002). How Do Inland Ports Develop? Inland ports throughout the world vary substantially in physical design and philosophy, as well as institutional and organizational structure and ownership.
    [Show full text]
  • PORT SAN ANTONIO Texas’ Location and Diverse Economy Offer Unique Trade Opportunities and Make It a Critical Gateway to Global Business
    PORT OF ENTRY PORT SAN ANTONIO Texas’ location and diverse economy offer unique trade opportunities and make it a critical gateway to global business. Our state boasts TOTAL TEXAS 29 OFFICIAL PORTS of entry facilitating more than $631 BILLION TRADE IN 2015 in trade in 2015. Trade through Texas supports an estimated 56.4% 1.6 MILLION TEXAS JOBS and adds $224.3 BILLION to GSP annually. $300 Ports of entry play a crucial role in making Texas the world’s 32.3% 10TH LARGEST ECONOMY. They affect every part of our state, from $200 our largest cities to rural counties. As the state’s chief financial officer, I hope highlighting their benefits will emphasize their importance to $100 strong, diverse and growing 11.3% regional economies. Glenn Hegar AIR LAND WATER IN BILLIONS 0 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Source: U.S. Census Bureau INTERMODAL LOGISTICS FACILITY ABOUT PORT SAN ANTONIO Port San Antonio is one of Texas’ two intermodal facilities, making it different from traditional ports. Here’s an example of how it works. While Port San Antonio does engage in some trade, the bulk of its economic 1. 2. 3. activity results from its role as one of two Parts come into port Parts are assembled at Components head to intermodal logistics facilities in Texas. via air, rail or truck. port facilities into larger their next destination These facilities add value and increase components. via air, rail or truck. overall economic impact by serving as important logistical hubs, providing tenants access to runways, major highways and railways.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas: the Logistical Heart of North America
    Texas: The Logistical Heart of North America www.BusinessInTexas.com Contents Deep Water Sea Ports…………………………………………….. 1 Commercial Airports………………………………………………. 3 Class 1 Railroads……………………………………………………… 9 Intermodal Rail Facilities…………………………………………. 10 International Border……………………………………………….. 12 Exports…………………………………………………………………… 13 Logistics Workforce………………………………………………… 14 Deep Water Sea Ports The Port of Houston is the largest gulf coast The Port of Brownsville is planning to increase container port, handling 67 percent of U.S. Gulf the 17-mile-long channel depth to 52 feet from coast container traffic in 2014. it’s current depth of 42 feet. This will allow the port to accommodate the new Post-Panamax The Ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi rank in vessels expected to utilize this international gate- the top 10 among all U.S. ports for total cargo way in the coming years. volume. Texas has more than 1,000 miles of channel maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Sources: Texas Department of Transportation, 2014 Texas Port Report 1 Texas Seaports Dominate Foreign Trade In 2013, the Port of Houston ranked No. 1 in foreign waterborne tonnage, U.S. imports, and U.S. exports. The Ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi also ranked in the top 10. Total Foreign Trade at Major U.S. Ports 180 160 140 120 100 80 Millions of Tons of Millions 60 40 20 0 Houston, South NY/NJ Long Hampton Beaumont, Los Corpus TX Louisiana Beach, CA Roads, VA TX Angeles, CA Christi, TX 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Source: American Association of Port Authorities 2 Commercial Airports 27 Texas communities are served by airports offering Texas is home to six of the top 50 busiest airports in scheduled service on commercial airlines.
    [Show full text]
  • Kelly Field Comprehensive Plan March 2021
    Kelly Field Comprehensive Plan March 2021 Prepared for Alamo Area Council of Governments 2700 NE Loop 410, Suite 101 300 South Meridian Street San Antonio, Texas 78217 Indianapolis, Indiana 4662 VC-2019-2790-JLUS-KELLYFIELD-CHA-R1 www.chacompanies.com KELLY FIELD (SKF) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Kelly Field Executive Summary: National Airport, National Asset ................................................... I Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Objective ................................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 Kelly Field Background ................................................................................................. 1-2 1.3.1 History .......................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.2 Airport Organization and National Role ...................................................................... 1-4 1.3.3 Impact on National Defense ........................................................................................ 1-6 1.3.4 Annual Aircraft Operations .......................................................................................... 1-6 1.3.5 Surrounding Aviation Community ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Logistics Hub of the Americas 2013
    Logistics Hub of the Americas 2013 Office of the Governor | Economic Development & Tourism Contents Deep Water Sea Ports…………………………………………….. 1 Commercial Airports………………………………………………. 3 Class 1 Railroads……………………………………………………… 6 Intermodal Rail Facilities…………………………………………. 7 International Border……………………………………………….. 9 Exports…………………………………………………………………… 10 Logistics Workforce………………………………………………… 11 Deep Water Sea Ports The Port of Houston is the No. 2 busiest port in the The Ports of Beaumont, Brownsville, Calhoun, Corpus U.S. by total cargo volume and 12th busiest in the Christi, Freeport, Galveston, Houston, Orange, Port world (2010). Arthur, and Texas City, are designated as foreign-trade zones (FTZs). The U.S. government considers FTZs to The Ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi rank in the be outside U.S. Customs territory. Merchandise may top 10 among all U.S. ports for total cargo volume. be brought into an FTZ without formal customs entry, import quotas, or most other import restrictions. Texas has more than 1,000 miles of channel maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1 Texas seaports dominate Gulf of Mexico trade The value of annual imports and exports at the Port of Houston is more than that of any other U.S. seaport on the Gulf Coast, totaling approximately $169 billion in 2011. Total Annual Trade Value at Major Gulf of Mexico Seaports 180 $169 B 160 140 120 100 80 60 Trade Value in Billions of Dollars Trade Value in Billions 40 20 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: WISERTrade. Data from U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, U.S. Port Level Data 2 Commercial Airports 27 Texas communities are served by airports offering Texas is home to six of the top 50 busiest airports in scheduled service on commercial airlines.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to the Historical Markers of Bexar County Index
    A Guide to the Historical Markers of Bexar County Index San Antonio City Center..........4-29 HemisFair Park King William Historic District La Villita Main Plaza Milam Park Military Plaza Piazza Italia Northwest Bexar County........29-36 Coker Cemetery San Pedro Park Northeast Bexar County.........36-46 Alamo Masonic Cemetery City Cemetery Confederate Cemetery Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery Witte Museum Southwest Bexar County........47-50 San Fernando Cemetery Southeast Bexar County.........50-55 El Carmen Cemetery The information in these listings comes from the more The Missions detailed text on each Historical Marker in Bexar County. St. Mary’s Cemetery When you visit these sites you will be standing on the spot where some interesting piece of history Maps.....................................56-65 actually took place. This listing is as accurate and complete as possible as of 2013. As new markers are exhibited, we will keep this Indicates 1936 Historical Markers listing current. However, markers are occasionally relocated or removed for renovation, and unfortunately vandals take Indicates active Military installation their toll. Should you discover any irregularity, please write to The Bexar County Historical Commision: Facilities and Parks Department 101 Nueva • Suite 930 San Antonio, Texas 78205 210-335-6684 • Fax 210-335-6717 © 2013 Bexar County Historical Commission City Center City Center City Center upon hearing that the 2-story long barracks were about to be razed, Miss Adina barricaded 1. Alamo Plaza herself inside the buildings for three days and nights in an effort that ultimately prevented Mission San Antonio de Valero - The Alamo their destruction. (Alamo Plaza) ln 1718, missionaries founded Mission San Menger Hotel Antonio de Valero, named in honor of Saint 204 Alamo Plaza Anthony and the Marquis de Valero of Spain.
    [Show full text]