Apron Planning and Design Guidebook (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4Project Approach The planning and design of aprons follow a process similar to the process used to plan and design other airport projects. A general outline of the apron planning and design process is provided on Figure 2-1. It is important to consider all of these steps, but the process should be tailored to the needs of the individual airport. The definitive steps in this general process are defined here. It is important to note that (depending on a number of factors) not every project will require every step listed. Planning projects will not typically include the later steps in the process, which reflect more immediate project implementation. Additionally, the level of planning detail will also influence which steps are completed, with master planning typically requiring less definitive and specific planning than that associated with a terminal development program or similar project. • Apron Planning – Identification of need: The planning process begins with identification of the need for a new apron facility(s), modification of an existing apron, or other reconfiguration/repurposing of an apron area, which may be identified by one or more entities. Most typically, tenants or airport operators may seek additional apron facilities to improve inefficient and constrained operations or to accommodate planned growth. Understanding the needs and issues that drive a potential project is important to best define the later steps in the planning/design analysis. Coordination with the FAA may be advised if federal moneys are being sought for construction or modification of the apron or if the project has potential operational conse- quences. The goal of the identification of need process is to define, as clearly and specifically as possible, the apron planning/design objectives, as they can influence the project. – Inventory: Upon identifying a potential need for apron facilities, existing apron and non- apron facilities should be inventoried to provide a basis for understanding the capacity and operation of existing facilities, as well as the physical and operational characteristics and con- straints of the airport and project vicinity. Other information that may be collected includes existing apron utilization statistics, leases, environmental factors, financial information, and demand forecasts. It may also be helpful to conduct interviews with stakeholders, including airport management, airlines serving the airport, airport tenants, and third-party providers. The goal of the inventory process is to ensure a thorough understanding of the physical, environmental, business, and operating environment to ensure appropriate consideration during the planning and design processes. – Demand forecasts: Future apron demand can be obtained from the requesting stakeholder(s) or developed by a planner/designer or airport management through a forecasting process. Forecasted activity on the apron, including the fleet serving the airport and the peak demand on the apron throughout the day, is necessary to determine apron area requirements. The C H A P T E R 2 Apron Planning and Design Process

Apron Planning and Design Process 5 potential for changes in the number of operations or an evolving fleet serving the airport is important to consider during this step to ensure flexibility and the longevity of the useful life of the apron. The goal of the demand forecasting step is to quantify, to the degree possible, what the planned apron must be able to accommodate. – Apron requirements: The demand forecasts and the inventory information is used to derive apron requirements for the anticipated aircraft fleet and the GSE expected to use the apron. Other functional and operational requirements should also be identified at this time and considered in the planning/design of the facility. Multiple uses for the apron and the required equipment or infrastructure to accommodate those uses should be identified during this step. Coordination with stakeholders is also important during this step to ensure that all user needs are considered and incorporated into the requirements definition. The goal is to define the physical, operational, and dimensional parameters that must guide and be met during apron planning and design. – Alternatives development: Once the apron requirements have been determined, alter- natives to meet those requirements are defined, considering the operation of the apron, impacts to proximate facilities, and other planning criteria or guidelines. This iterative process often involves close coordination with stakeholders to gather input on the layout of alternatives and to ensure that concerns can be resolved. The goal of this step is to creatively define apron alternatives that are anticipated to satisfy the project requirements, recognizing Figure 2-1. Apron planning and design processes. Demand Forecasts Alternatives Development Apron Design Inventory Identification of Need Stakeholder Involvement Apron Construction Apron Requirements Stakeholder Involvement Evaluation of Alternatives Stakeholder Involvement Environmental Processing Agency Coordination Refinement of Preferred Alternative Implementation Planning Stakeholder Involvement Stakeholder Involvement Stakeholder Involvement Agency Coordination A pr on P la nn in g Source: Ricondo & Associates, Inc.

6 Apron Planning and Design Guidebook that these alternatives will be further evaluated in a later step. It is possible that, in some cases, the project requirements may be satisfied by implementing operational solutions rather than modifying, expanding, or otherwise reconfiguring the apron area. – Evaluation of alternatives: If more than a single alternative is considered, all alternatives should be evaluated in this step to reduce the number of alternatives to a preferred alternative. This evaluation is usually completed by using a set of criteria agreed upon by stakeholders. The goal of this step is to review the candidate apron alternatives and determine which best meet the goals of the project sponsor and its stakeholders, balanced against the costs, impacts, potential environmental consequences, and other relevant criteria. – Refinement of preferred alternative: In this step, the preferred project alternative is refined to resolve shortcomings identified in the evaluation process or from additional input from stakeholders. The refinement can include value engineering to maximize project cost effec- tiveness. The goal of this step is to define the preferred project alternative at an appropriate level of detail for implementation. – Implementation planning: This step in the planning and design process enhances the under- standing and definition of the conceptual project by providing a summary description and schedule of the recommended improvements, estimated associated costs, potential envi- ronmental impacts, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. This step can include a financial or business plan that demonstrates the financial feasibility of the apron project. This step also includes identifying any potential operational impacts that may occur during construction. The goal of this step is to examine the project in light of the steps that would typically be necessary prior to project construction to minimize the potential for unexpected influences or constraints to affect eventual project implementation. • Environmental processing: If a federal action is associated with the apron project (approval of an airport layout plan [ALP], acceptance of federal grant funding, etc.) NEPA documentation may be required to accurately disclose potential environmental impacts related to the proposed federal action and reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. Coordination with the FAA is necessary to determine the required level of documentation (categorical exclusion, environ- mental assessment, or environmental impact statement). State environmental reviews or per- mits may also be necessary. The goal of this step is to develop and document an understanding of the potential environmental impacts, particularly in those cases where such impacts could influence the project. • Apron design: Apron design may begin before or after environmental processing depending on the level of environmental documentation required. Initiating design prior to NEPA approval could be risky in that the design may need to be changed to address environmental concerns. The design of an apron is usually coordinated with the airport operator and tenants through a design review process. Apron design also requires additional information not necessarily detailed in the description of the planning and design processes, such as topographical surveys. Final design usually includes the preparation of construction documents and bid specifications. • Apron construction: After selection of a contractor, construction of the apron is completed in accordance with the apron design information. Stakeholder Involvement Often, several individuals or groups have an interest or need to be included in the apron plan- ning and design processes. Stakeholders can include the primary users or operators of an apron (fixed-base operator, airlines, etc.); regulatory agencies, such as the FAA; airport representatives; and parties responsible for the cost, operation, environmental impacts, and safety of the apron facilities. Stakeholder involvement is critical to ensuring that the needs and requirements of these parties are considered throughout project planning and implementation. Involvement of these stakeholders helps ensure that the needs and priorities of all relevant users are considered during

Apron Planning and Design Process 7 the planning process, increasing the likelihood of stakeholder support for the project before and after construction. This involvement also helps reflect broader industry perspectives in the plan- ning and design of apron facilities, informing the planner/designer of technologies, operational procedures, and other relevant factors that may warrant consideration. A stakeholder involve- ment strategy and plan should be established early in the planning process to facilitate balanced stakeholder representation and involvement. The strategy and plan to implement it will vary by project type (e.g., rehabilitation, new construction, facility expansion) and size, as well as the airport operational characteristics, tenant composition, affected parties, and other factors. It should be recognized that there is often some level of tension between airports, owners of apron facilities, and airlines as predominant users of apron facilities (at commercial service airports). This tension, which tends to ensure that there is ultimately productive coordination among the parties, reflects the challenges associated with optimizing the productive utilization of available apron (a limited resource at many airports) without compromising safety in any way. Both airlines and airports prioritize safety above other factors; however, airlines are also chal- lenged to meet flight schedules, accommodate irregular operations, and plan for fleet and pas- senger growth and other operational objectives. While standardization of the apron environment (physical, operational, dimensional, environmental, etc.) has advantages and may be desirable to varying degrees, maintaining apron flexibility is critical in being able to safely optimize its use and configuration. Both airline and airport representatives recognize this. In the context of this guidance document, the need for balance among the needs and concerns of operators, users, and owners of apron facilities is emphasized. The most functional and efficient facilities are planned and designed with input from both the airport perspective and the airline/user perspective. Airport Tenants Coordination with airport tenants is recommended to ensure that specific requirements are considered in the planning and design of aprons. Tenants will typically consist of airlines, cargo operators, and fixed base operators, each of which will have specific requirements for apron facil- ities. Examples of specific requirements, in addition to operational factors, include the desired passenger level of service (e.g., loading bridges versus apron boarding), minimum acceptable dimensional clearances, GSE storage requirements, proximity of support areas, need for fueling facilities, and lighting. Understanding specific and sometimes unique user requirements facili- tates the planning of a facility that emphasizes those aspects of an apron that the user considers to be a priority. Coordination with tenants early in the planning process provides an opportunity to discuss airport operator rules, regulations, or guidelines. By clearly identifying these, com- promises can be discussed and potential conflicts caused by unmet expectations can be avoided. Tenants are also the best source of information on the operational profile of the activity that influences apron planning and design. Airport Management and Staff Airport management and staff have important roles in apron planning and design. Many individual staff members or airport departments are affected by apron development and should be included in the planning process. Involvement of the following departments (or individuals at smaller airports) should be considered for the reasons identified. • Planning and development (includes engineering) – Ensuring compatibility with the airport master plan or ALP and longer range planning and development objectives. – Application of airport apron planning standards. – Consistency of apron activity forecasts with overall airport forecasts.

8 Apron Planning and Design Guidebook • Finance – Assessing the financial feasibility of proposed apron facilities. – Determining the potential for apron lease fees to provide a positive return on investment. – Assessing alignment with relevant tenant business arrangements. • Operations – Obtaining input on unique airport operations (e.g., snow removal/melters, storm water drainage, deicing operations). – Implementation planning and assessing impacts of apron area construction on airport operations. – Ensuring compatibility with ramp control tower line of sights. • Facilities and maintenance – Obtaining information on existing conditions and maintenance of aprons and related equipment (e.g., passenger loading bridges, apron equipment). • Information technology – Coordination of specific data needs and infrastructure requirements. • Construction (can include engineering) – Understanding airport or local construction methods and materials. – Determining unique soils or other design considerations or conditions. – Providing input on bid specifications and documents. • Environmental – Identifying potential environmental constraints. – Identifying permitting requirements or assessing compliance with existing permits. – Strategizing on potential NEPA processing needs. • Airport security, police, emergency response, fire department – Ensuring that apron plans comply with airport security procedures. – Providing roadway access and parking areas for police and security vehicles. – Providing dedicated access for firefighting and emergency response. Third-Party Providers At some airports, aircraft servicing and other activities that occur on aprons are provided by a third party. These activities can include, but are not limited to, baggage handling, fueling, deicing, catering, cleaning, lavatory servicing, maintenance, and cargo loading. Discussions with third-party providers early in the planning and design processes may provide a greater under- standing of existing apron operations and the need for planned apron activities. Throughout the planning process, third-party providers can help provide a thorough understanding of the local operation, especially in terms of identifying strengths and weaknesses of existing facilities, which can be used as input to the apron planning process. Agency Involvement FAA FAA involvement at relevant milestones throughout the apron planning and design processes is recommended for several reasons: • Funding: When airport owners, sponsors, or other organizations accept grant funding from FAA-administered financial assistance programs (e.g., the Airport Improvement Program) they must agree to certain obligations, referred to as grant assurances. These grant assurances generally require the owner/sponsor to operate the airport in a safe and efficient manner along with other specific obligations. If FAA grant funding is being sought for the project, coordination

Apron Planning and Design Process 9 with the FAA is recommended to ensure that the application for funding complies with facility use, environmental, and safety requirements. • Environmental requirements: FAA involvement is needed to ensure that a planned apron project complies with relevant environmental requirements. The FAA will often assist in determining the level of documentation (categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, environmental impact statement) required for specific apron projects. • Compliance with aeronautical surfaces and planning/design guidance: Depending on the location of a planned apron, parked aircraft could affect airfield navigational signals or penetrate aeronautical surfaces. The FAA has a role in ensuring that planning apron facilities and associated parking plans comply with restrictions on such occurrences. Additionally, the FAA seeks adher- ence to established planning and design criteria except in limited and unusual situations. • Airport traffic control tower: In cases where aircraft movements on a planned apron are controlled by air traffic control or located adjacent to a controlled area, coordination with FAA Airport Traffic Control Tower staff is important to ensure that aircraft can safely move into and out of the aircraft apron. TSA The TSA has authority over the security of transportation in the United States. The TSA is responsible for the screening of passengers and baggage at airports, while the airport operator is responsible for the security of most other airport areas, primarily through enforcement of an airport security program (ASP). As aprons are where people interact with aircraft, the TSA and airport security personnel should be included in the development and review of apron alterna- tives to ensure the integrity of airfield security. Additionally, cargo screening must be considered in the planning and design of cargo apron facilities. U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) should be included in the planning process for apron facilities used to process passengers or cargo from arriving international flights (e.g., terminal, cargo, general aviation). International flights arriving to the United States— including all baggage, cargo, passengers, and crew—are under CBP jurisdiction. Most terminal complexes include facilities to process arriving passengers and crew. At airports without CBP passenger processing facilities, apron areas are usually identified for the purpose of isolating and searching aircraft upon arrival. Local Police and Fire Departments Local police and fire departments, including providers of aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) services, should be involved in the planning and design of apron facilities. This involve- ment includes ensuring that aprons, especially adjacent to buildings, provide sufficient access and are in compliance with any local standards. Coordination with a local fire marshal may be required to ensure that apron plans comply with appropriate criteria. At larger airports, ARFF personnel respond to evacuation and possible rescue of passengers and crew involved in a ground emergency. In planning aprons, planners must ensure that the apron location does not interfere with ARFF operations, especially response times to all locations on an airfield. In addition, the layout of aprons must provide for ARFF equipment to be able to access aircraft during emergencies. Additionally, ARFF personnel are usually responsible for responding to fire emergencies related to buildings and vehicles on an airport. Apron locations and configurations need to

10 Apron Planning and Design Guidebook accommodate access for firefighting equipment to all required buildings or other structures. At airports without ARFF services, local fire departments or airport personnel with special training typically respond to fire emergencies. Early in the planning process, coordination with ARFF or fire departments is strongly recommended to ensure that the selection and development of the preferred alternative does not introduce undesirable operational challenges to firefighting or emergency response operations. Federal, State, and Local Government Agencies In addition to the coordination described above, various other federal, state, and local gov- ernment agencies may be involved with apron planning and design. Some states, through their departments of transportation or aeronautics departments, enforce regulations for airports that supplement FAA planning criteria. These regulations can range from requiring consideration of state-specific aeronautical surfaces to requiring approval of an ALP. In addition, many state aeronautics departments provide grant funding for apron-related facilities. Many states and local jurisdictions also have environmental laws and regulations that need to be considered in apron planning and design, along with federal environmental laws and regula- tions (see Section 4.3.4). Although federal environmental regulations apply to all U.S. airports, the issues addressed in these regulations vary based on local environmental conditions. Envi- ronmental requirements themselves vary among states and local jurisdictions. Examples of the environmental categories that may require coordination at the federal, state, or local level are listed here; however, it is critical that the applicable state and local regulations that apply to an individual airport are identified. • Air quality: Many states have adopted air quality plans, referred to as state implementations plans (SIPs), to evaluate whether a project is consistent with the state’s planned progress toward attaining and maintaining compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act. • State wildlife: Along with U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, coordi- nation with appropriate state wildlife agencies may be required to identify the potential effects of an apron project on state-listed threatened and endangered species. • State and local historical/archaeological agency: Pursuant to the National Historic Preser- vation Act, the state and local Historic Preservation Officer should be requested to evaluate potential impacts of an apron project on cultural resources. • Wastewater: Apron projects that may result in increased demand on wastewater facilities should be discussed with local wastewater agencies to ensure that the airport operator has the proper permits and that the wastewater facility has sufficient capacity to accommodate the new apron-related demand. • Water quality: Coordination with water quality agencies may be required to evaluate compli- ance of apron storm water runoff with local and state regulations. • Storm water quantity: Regulation of storm water quantities associated with a project occurs primarily on the municipal, regional, or state level. Coordination with agencies may be required to evaluate the effect of storm water to minimize flooding and protect downstream infrastructure. • Wetlands: Coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and appropriate local/state agency may be required regarding potential effects of constructing an apron on existing wetlands.