NextGen for Airports, Volume 5: Airport Planning and Development (2017)

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.

Incorporating NextGen into Airport Planning and Development | 45 Incorporating NextGen into Airport Planning and Development3 Effects of NextGen on Airport Planning Criteria and Guidelines NextGen will have both near- and long-term effects on planning criteria and guidelines. The pur-pose of this chapter is to provide a working-level discussion of the likely changes to planning practices to reflect the expected gradual introduction of NextGen capabilities to airports. It is expected that, as NextGen becomes more widely implemented, additional and more specific guidance will become available from the FAA in the form of revised ACs, orders, and other documents. Not all of the information needed to plan for NextGen is likely to be available from the FAA Office of Airports. As is currently the case, much of the information needed to consider NextGen effects will be distributed by other sources, such as the FAA ATO and Flight Standards Service, RTCA, ACRP, and elsewhere. The appendices to this guidebook will provide additional resources for airport planners. Airport Master Planning With a typical time frame of 20 years, airport master plans are the primary vehicle for the facility, op- erational, and financial planning of major changes to airports, such as new runways, taxiways, termi- nals, or other significant additions to the airport infrastructure. For example, the required infrastructure related to airfield capacity improvements is heavily dependent on the standards for separations and clearances between runways, taxiways, obstructions, and other factors likely to change as a result of forthcoming NextGen capabilities. NextGen has already affected runway capacity through reductions in wake turbulence aircraft separations, improved arrival and departure capabilities, and optimization of the terminal airspace; it is anticipated that similar changes will continue to occur as the subse- quent phases of this program unfolds. Although these changes are expected to have positive effects on airport planning, it is possible that some unexpected negative impacts might occur. Other airport planning considerations that will be affected by NextGen include: • Obstacle clearances—The final-approach obstacle clearance surface (OCS) associated with certain advanced NextGen PBN instrument approach procedures (e.g., RNAV LNAV and RNAV RNP 0.3) is significantly wider and potentially more restrictive near the runway threshold than the OCSs associ- ated with certain existing instrument approach procedures, as shown in Figure 3-1. In planning for these future PBN approaches, there may be a need for additional clearance of obstacles close in to the airport. Alternatively, under procedures outlined in FAA Order JO 7400.2K, Procedures for Hand- ling Airspace Matters, the FAA could conduct an aeronautical study to determine whether obstacles under these wider OCS areas would have a substantial adverse effect on aeronautical operations (i.e., a determination of whether or not those obstacles would be a hazard to air navigation).

46 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • Potential environmental effects of new or relocated airfield facilities or enhanced flight procedures enabled by NextGen (positive and negative). • The potential ability to eliminate on-airport facilities and equipment, such as ground-based NA- VAIDs and ATCTs, may provide airport operators the ability to develop other revenue generating facilities. In addition to eliminating the physical infrastructure associated with these facilities, the elimination of certain NAVAID-critical areas and ATC line-of-sight restrictions could enhance opera- tions on the airfield. • Airport capital, operating, and maintenance budgeting and planning for investments to leverage the opportunities associated with certain NextGen technologies and procedures. Increasing airfield capacity (including arrivals, departures, and ground movements) can have the po- tential to delay other capital expenditure (Capex) projects. This is one of the more positive aspects of NextGen as it relates to airport owners/operators and how they need to map out their future improve- ments to accommodate demand. It can result in major cost savings, or at least the deferment of major capital programs such as a new runway. Surface operations with CDM are also important considerations in an airport master plan, particularly with respect to the planning and operations of the gates, hardstands, and ramp control. Forecasting future activity is a typical element of a master plan. In a master plan study, NextGen should be viewed in terms of its ability to allow aircraft operational enhancements to occur. This can Source: F FAA Orde Procedure Preservati Note: Cro instrumen AA Order 82 r 8260.58A, Design; and on of the Nav ss section dis t procedure d 60.3C, Unite United State Title 14, Co igable Airsp tance referen esign. d States Stan s Standard fo de of Federa ace.” ce is for disp dard for Term r Performanc l Regulations lay purposes inal Instrum e Based Nav , Part 77, “Sa and does not ent Procedu igation (PBN fe, Efficient correlate to res (TERPS); ) Instrument Use, and a requiremen t for Source: FAA Order 8260.3C, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS); FAA Order 8260.58A, United States Standard for Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Instrument Procedure Design; and Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77, “Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace.” Note: Cross section distance reference is for display purposes and does not correlate to a requirement for instrument procedure design. Figure 3-1. Comparison of final approach obstacle clearance surfaces.

Incorporating NextGen into Airport Planning and Development | 47 take place in several forms. In some cases, for example at an airport in a mountainous environment, NextGen could enhance the aircraft operating environment to the point where more operations can occur because NextGen has increased access. In other cases, such as a high-density airport with sig- nificant peaking activity, NextGen could allow for closer spacing of aircraft operations, thus allowing for more activity to occur. Forecasting could also include estimates of future aircraft equipage trends (e.g., by airlines and by GA), which would help assess the types of PBN procedures that could be implemented. During the master planning process, the defining of facility requirements and identification of alterna- tives should consider the potential capacity benefits and deferment of capital investments that could result from implementing NextGen technologies and operations. It is in this portion of the master plan that operations requirements are established to meet existing and future demand and in which many alternatives are considered before a final plan is established. For example, in some cases, successful NextGen implementation could result in an airport’s ability defer the building of an additional runway and still meet operational needs. However, the master planning process should also consider the po- tential that community groups opposed to airport development may claim that future projects will not be needed because of long-term NextGen developments. Airport planners need to provide realistic assessments of the extent to which future NextGen capabilities will and will not substitute for facility development. Because of the uncertainty about the timing and benefits of NextGen operational improvements, it may be prudent for a master planning process to include a scenario-based approach to integrating NextGen into planning. For example, mature, near-term technologies could be assumed for the main planning scenario, while longer-term less mature enhancements could be included as an alternative scenario so that multiple possible outcomes could be considered in the evaluation of the planning alternatives. Such an approach could be integrated into the master planning process of evaluating multiple future forecast levels, to consider the overall tradespace of possible future outcomes. Airport Environmental Planning NextGen has an array of benefits, including improved safety, increased capacity, enhanced fuel ef- ficiency, and reduced delays. However, the implementation of NextGen is undertaken through a series of discrete projects, and any given project may make improvements under only some of these cat- egories. As such, the environmental impacts of NextGen improvements are also best examined on a discrete basis. As such, this discussion on the environmental considerations associated with NextGen projects is structured based on the intended purpose and need of a specific NextGen project. The typical environmental impact categories for NextGen projects are aircraft noise exposure and emissions, although other categories may be affected depending on a project. A secondary concern is that a project may disproportionately impact a low-income or minority community and be subject to the Executive Order on Environmental Justice. Projects That Enhance Capacity Increased capacity and delay reduction are effectively two sides of the same coin. The central question in the environmental analysis of a NextGen project is whether aircraft activity (i.e., demand) is likely to increase as a result of a capacity-enhancement project, that is, would the airlines schedule more flights as a result of the project? The answer to this question is probably “yes” for a capacity-enhancement project at a congested airport with latent demand where the project would relax a system constraint. At non-congested airports, where there is not latent demand or where the project would not relax a system constraint, the capacity-enhancement project is more likely to result in a reduction in aircraft

48 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT delay, not an increase in demand. As such, a NextGen efficiency gain may not necessarily improve airport capacity in terms of decisions by airlines to schedule more flights. This careful categorization of delay reduction versus capacity enhancement affects the potential extent of environmental impacts. In the case of projects that enhance capacity, there is a much broader range of environmental impacts from the newly enabled flight operations that need to be considered. Enhanced capacity includes obvious impacts like additional aircraft noise, emissions, and ground transportation impacts; but it also could include less-obvious impacts like the need to accommodate greater volumes of aircraft deicing fluid, which could require expanded runoff-mitigation procedures and facilities. Projects That Reduce Delays/Fuel Consumption While delay reduction generally entails decreasing the magnitude of environmental impacts, for envi- ronmental impacts that are defined by geospatial factors (i.e., air quality from non-reactive plumes and aircraft noise exposure) changes that move those impacts, or concentrate those impacts need to be properly investigated. As an example, a given airspace change might not affect the number of flights occurring, but those flights could be concentrated over a noise sensitive area. In this circumstance, there could be an adverse impact in that area. Likewise NextGen projects that result in a concentration of flight tracks are also likely to result in a concentration of aircraft noise impacts. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 provide an example of flight tracks more widely dispersed vs. more concentrated as a result of PBN implementation (Source: Kristi McKinney, Port of Oakland, ACI-NA “Airports at Work Conference,” April 2016). Typically geospatial impacts are evaluated relative to a threshold of significance that FAA has estab- lished for the respective environmental categories. However, environmental impacts could be deemed significant even if the adverse impact falls below an FAA-defined threshold of significance, but the Figure 3-2. Flight tracks before PBN implementation at Oakland International Airport.

Incorporating NextGen into Airport Planning and Development | 49 adverse impacts disproportionately affects economically or socially disadvantaged communities. Under Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” a NextGen-related action that does not create a significant environmental impact (e.g., an increase of greater than 1.5 DNL inside the 65 DNL) could be deemed significant if the increases are disproportionately focused on low-income or minority communities. This is an impor- tant consideration because some neighborhoods in close proximity to airports could be characterized as being comprised of low-income or minority populations. Projects That Improve Reliability Many of the benefits of NextGen are associated with retaining near VMC operational capacity irre- spective of meteorological constraints or nearby airspace congestion. Enhancing reliability with such improvements would likely be environmentally benign if the improvements applied to operations throughout the year. However, such improvements often target a very specific set of circumstances and, like the geospatial consideration associated with delay reduction, such reliability projects could also have impacts driven by geospatial considerations. As an example, perhaps a cross wind runway is used for 2% of annual aircraft operations, but a NextGen improvement allows that runway to now be used in a specific set of IMC and that runway would now be used for 4% of annual operations. While this is a small fraction of annual operations, this is a doubling of activity on this one runway and has the potential to cause a significant adverse environmental impact. Projects Affecting Physical Facilities Some NextGen facilities may impact physical facilities on the ground. Such impacts could range from building a new ATCT to enabling the abandonment of functionally obsolete air navigation facilities. These types of projects need to consider all the environmental impact categories defined in FAA Order 1050.1F that would normally be associated with a standard construction review for any other facility Figure 3-3. Flight tracks after PBN implementation at Oakland International Airport.

50 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT on the airport. Beyond the typical impact categories, one that may present a challenge for NextGen projects is the U.S.DOT’s Section 106 regulation regarding historic structures. A structure only needs to be 50 years old to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, meaning that coordination with a State Historic Preservation Officer could be required for the removal of impacted facilities that are more than 50 years old. In considering future airport development plans, it is important that airport owners/operators effec- tively balance the airside and landside capacities commensurate with demands. Environmental Review for NextGen Projects Whether a NextGen project is being environmentally reviewed by the Office of Airports or the ATO, both offices are required to follow the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and FAA’s correspond- ing guidance, Order 1050.1F. However, while the Office of Airports frequently manages NEPA in the course of daily business, ATO staff is less likely to encounter NEPA on a daily basis. As such, there is the possibility of non-uniform application of Order 1050.1F between these two offices. The topic most often expressed by airport operators during the NEPA process is the degree to which the FAA has involved airports as a stakeholder for airspace actions. In several cases, airports reported feeling that the FAA did not sufficiently engage key airport planning staff when conduction their environmental review, nor did they provide sufficient opportunity for public involvement. As a result, the FAA has updated its policies and guidelines for implementing NextGen projects (in particular PBN projects), in terms of how it engages airport operators and representatives of the public in the envi- ronmental review process. In addition, airports have been made increasingly aware of the importance to proactively reach out to ATO personnel and express an interest in being made aware of all potential NextGen projects. It is also worth noting that in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 Congress created a new legislative categorical exclusion Section 213 (c) (1) that states: (c) COORDINATED AND EXPEDITED REVIEW 1) In General—Navigation performance and area navigation procedures developed, certified, published, or imple- mented under this section shall be presumed to be covered by a categorical exclusion (as defined in section 1508.4 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations) under chapter 3 of FAA Order 1050.1E unless the Administrator determines that extraordinary circumstances exist with respect to the procedure. This legislative categorical exclusion has since been incorporated in FAA Order 1050.1F, and is note- worthy because it may result in a less rigorous environmental review of a NextGen project than otherwise would have been expected. There has been significant controversy and pushback from the airport industry on this new legislative categorical exclusion, and there have been attempts by industry organizations such as RTCA to more clearly define and quantify “extraordinary circumstances.” State and Regional/Metropolitan Airport System Planning Even before NextGen emerged as an FAA program, the potential of applying advanced communica- tion, navigation, and surveillance (CNS) technologies to the benefit of aviation for state, regional, and metropolitan areas was obvious. The core concepts of using advanced CNS capabilities were tested in the FAA Capstone Project in conjunction with the state of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Division of Statewide Aviation. The lack of a usable instrument-navigation infrastruc- ture and radar coverage, combined with the harsh weather conditions, caused Alaska to have a high rate of accidents and to frequently experience unreliable flight completion performance to rural com- munities without road access.

Incorporating NextGen into Airport Planning and Development | 51 Under phase 1 of the Capstone Project, a fleet of small commercial aircraft evaluated safety benefits of technologies during day-to-day operations in Alaska. The aircraft were fitted with IFR capable GPS receivers, a universal access transceiver (UAT) data-link system that enabled ADS-B and FIS-B including real-time weather, a multifunction display depicting terrain, other ADS-B aircraft, and weather graph- ics and text data. This bundle of avionics was installed on 200 aircraft used for commuter, charter, and mail flights in southwest Alaska. Phase 2 of the program recognized that the minimum en route altitudes (MEAs) of the airways in southwestern Alaska were typically above the altitudes that the GA fleet of aircraft could safely fly with- out encountering icing conditions, even in the summer. Legacy en route NAVAIDS required land-based sites where power was available and maintenance crews had access. This land-based system resulted in a traditional IFR route structure that was not optimized for the terrain or typical small aircraft us- ers in southeast Alaska. The technology that changed this and put the routes and approaches where they were needed, at low altitudes over the fjords, was the introduction of the WAAS and associated approaches. Capstone worked with the WAAS program office to help provide the WAAS signal to the Phase II Capstone equipment. Certification and initial installations of Capstone Phase II WAAS avionics took place in 2002. On March 13, 2003, Special Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 97 was approved by FAA, authoriz- ing en route IFR navigation in Alaska based solely on satellite technology without reference to ground radio navigation stations. In 2006, the FAA integrated the Alaskan Capstone project into the national ADS-B program. A similar early success of NextGen technologies was initiated by the Colorado Department of Aviation to address reductions in capacity during IMC weather at several high mountain airports. This effort was chosen as one of the case studies in this project and is more fully described in Appendix B. In 2005, the FAA, at the request of the state of Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT’s) Division of Aeronautics, conducted an analysis of these delays and cancellations. IMC at those airports can reduce aircraft acceptance rates from 12 to 17 flights per hour, to only 4 per hour because of the lack of radar coverage and the need to impose procedural separation. The FAA study determined that the lack of surveillance contributed to reduced capacity during IMC, and identified multilateration as the preferred solution for providing surveillance to the Colorado mountain airports. In September 2006, the FAA and the CDOT’s Division of Aeronautics signed a Memorandum of Agreement for a project to plan, install, test, and commission a surveillance system for the Colorado mountain airports. WAM began initial operations on September 12, 2009, at Denver Center serving the Yampa Valley- Hayden, Craig-Moffat, Steamboat Springs, and Garfield County Regional-Rifle Airports. The WAM capability provide these airports with improved safety, efficiency, and capacity by allowing controllers to see aircraft that are outside radar coverage, saving time and money that would otherwise be lost due to flight delays and cancellations or diversions to other airports. On December 8, 2009, the FAA approved the next phase of the Colorado WAM. The phase 2 allows for the development and imple- mentation of air traffic separation services, using multilateration and ADS-B surveillance for en route air traffic operations in and out of the mountain areas. Another regional planning success is documented more fully in Appendix B, the “Puget Sound Re- gional Council—Preparing Busy Airports for NextGen Technology.” This project represents the first NextGen study focused on a system of regional GA airports in the NAS and was funded via airport improvement program (AIP) grants. From the FAA’s perspective, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) was an ideal organization to fulfill the objectives of this grant. It already served as a forum for communication with airports in the region. There were also clear economies of scale to be achieved by studying the impact of NextGen on many closely related air- ports at the same time. This project was probably the most comprehensive study to date of NextGen

52 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT implementation at smaller GA airports from a system perspective. In addition, a number of NextGen technologies and operational improvements were being concurrently evaluated at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA). The FAA New England Office of Airports has long been active in encouraging regional planning activi- ties, supporting regional efforts during the 1990s, funding the “New England Regional Airport System Plan,” (NERASP) published in 2006 (http://www.faa.gov/airports/new_england/planning_capacity/ airport_system_plan/), and the “New England Regional Airport System Plan, General Aviation— Phase 1,” published in 2015 (www.pvdairport.com/documents/planning%20docs/neraspgasummary brochure.pdf). The latest document provides a broad inventory of the needs of New England’s GA airports but also identifies areas where NextGen applies, particularly in the importance of maintain- ing OFAs to achieve the lowest possible landing minimums. The conclusions and observations of the report1 cited a survey of 175 business aviation operators contacted during the study; 50% felt that improved instrument landing capability was required throughout the region. While much of the FAA funding for planning activities is directed to individual airport planning activity, there is increasing interest in using regional planning studies to help address congestion in the NAS. In December 2009, the Government Accountability Office published report GAO-10-120, “Regional Air- port Planning Could Help Address Congestion If Plans Were Integrated with FAA and Airport Decision Making.” The report highlighted the potential for NextGen capabilities to relieve pressure on con- gested large airports and recommended that the Secretary of Transportation direct the FAA to create a review process for regional airport system plans (RASPs) and use its current authority to give priority to funding airport projects that are consistent with RASPs. Although the application of NextGen capabilities to state, regional, and metropolitan planning has long been recognized, organizational issues arising from the difficulty of coordinating planning among different airports within a region, each having different sponsors and planning objectives, has inhib- ited the widespread adoption of regional planning. Nevertheless, the examples cited here illustrate the importance of, and potential benefit from, applying NextGen capabilities to state, regional, and metropolitan airport planning initiatives. Airspace Redesign Studies (e.g., OAPM or Metroplex) Since the 1990s, there have been multiple airspace redesign studies and efforts conducted in the NAS, including the development of satellite-based GPS overlay SIAPs, the National Airspace Redesign Pro- gram, RNAV and RNP SIAPs, RNAV SIDs, and RNAV STARs. Initial implementation of RNAV and RNP occurred through multiple initiatives and grassroots local ef- forts lead by airlines, airport authorities, RTCA, FAA National Flight Procedures Division, and the FAA’s PBN Office (formerly the RNAV/RNP Office) to address capacity, efficiency, and environmental-related problems. Other programs were established on a federal level by the ATO. Table 3-1 highlights some of these early programs. These early efforts drove the FAA to begin developing and implementing RNAV (LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LPV, and LP) and RNP SIAPs at airports throughout the NAS. The implementation of RNAV SIAPs is managed by the FAA National Flight Procedures Office located at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center (MMAC) in Oklahoma City, OK. This group is responsible for the development, publication, and maintenance of all flight procedures in the NAS. IFPs are developed on a 56-day publication cycle. Each procedure published is reviewed on a biannual basis to ensure safety with new RNAV implemen- tation as part of the ongoing activities associated with this office. These efforts lead to a sharp increase in published PBN-based procedures available to pilots for use. However, in many cases, procedures 1 NERASP GA Phase 1 Conclusions and Observations, www.pvdairport.com/corporate/planning.

Incorporating NextGen into Airport Planning and Development | 53 Table 3-1. Early NextGen implementation initiatives. PROGRAM LEAD AIRPORT ACHIEVEMENT APPROXIMATE IMPLEMENTATION DATE RNP Approach Development Alaska Airlines Multiple Alaskan Airports Development and Implementation of RNP Approach Procedures at Alaskan Airports 1996 GPS Overlay Program FAA National Flight Procedures Division NAS-Wide Airports Development of very high frequency omnidirectional radio range (VOR) Overlay GPS-Based Approaches at NAS-Wide Airports Mid-1990s Denver RNAV Implementation United Airlines Denver International Airport Implementation of RNAV SIDs and STARs Improving Capacity, Efficiency and Noise Compliance 2012 Las Vegas Optimization Initiated by McCarran International Airport then transitioned to MITRE and FAA RNAV/RNP Office Las Vegas Area Airports Implementation of RNAV SIDs and STARs 2007 were developed without local coordination, thereby leading to unusable procedures or situations in which airports were not compliant with FAA airport design standards. Today airspace redesign occurs through multiple efforts including FAA Metroplex, airport master planning, airport systems planning, land use and aircraft noise exposure studies, and locally initiated efforts. The following sections provide further detail on these processes. Optimization of Airspace Procedures in the Metroplex The early terminal area PBN initiatives identified in Table 3-1 were initiatives established from a single airport perspective. As PBN implementation matured, the concept of implementing PBN for multiple airports in a metropolitan area was suggested by industry. This term became known as a Metroplex and is defined as a geographical area covering several airports serving a major metropolitan area and multiple aviation stakeholders. In response to industry demands, the FAA established the OAPM or Metroplex. continued

54 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM LEAD AIRPORT ACHIEVEMENT APPROXIMATE IMPLEMENTATION DATE National Airspace Redesign FAA U.S. En Route Airspace Development of Low-Altitude (“T”) PBN Routes & High-Altitude (“Q”) PBN Routes) and Efficient PBN En Route Structure Mid-2000s Boston Overflight Noise Study FAA and Massport Boston Logan International Implementation of RNAV SIDs and STARs and GPS Charted Visual Procedures for Noise Abatement 2009 New York/ New Jersey/ Philadelphia Airspace Redesign FAA and Airlines New York John F. Kennedy, La Guardia, Teterboro, Newark, Philadelphia Redesigned Terminal Airspace, Arrival Fixes, Departure Fixes, Implementation of RNAV SIDs and STARs 2007 Atlanta RNAV Implementation FAA RNAV/RNP Office, Delta Airlines Atlanta Jackson Hartsfield International First Successful FAA ATO RNAV/ RNP Initiative 2006 John Wayne Orange County Noise Abatement Departure FAA, Orange County, Alaska Airlines John Wayne Orange County Implementation of DUUKE RNAV SID for Noise Compliance (Currently Named the STREL RNAV SID) 2009 Minneapolis/ St. Paul RNAV Implementation Minneapolis/ St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, Northwest Airlines Minneapolis/ St. Paul International Airport Development of RNAV Departure for Runway 35 to Improve Noise. Initiative Lead to the Development of Multiple RNAV SIDs and STARs by FAA 2010 Seattle Greener Skies Boeing, Alaska Airlines Seattle International Airport Dual Simultaneous RNP Approaches on Dependent Closely Spaced Runways 2010 Source: Ricondo & Associates. Table 3-1. Continued

Incorporating NextGen into Airport Planning and Development | 55 Table 3-2. FAA Metroplex program snapshot. METROPLEX DAILY AVERAGE BY FISCAL YEAR PROJECTED ANNUAL BENEFITS 2014 TOTAL OPERATIONS 2014 SCHEDULED FLIGHTS FUEL SAVINGS (GALLONS OF FUEL IN MILLIONS) VALUE OF FUEL SAVINGS (FUEL COSTS IN MILLIONS) CARBON SAVINGS (METRIC TONS OF CARBON IN THOUSANDS) METROPLEX PHASE Atlanta 3,097 2,329 2.2 $6.3 18.8 Implementation Charlotte 2,636 2,026 3.3 $9.4 28.0 Implementation Cleveland- Detroit 2,341 1,435 3.4 $9.7 28.9 Evaluation D.C. 2,760 2,001 2.1 $6.1 18.2 Post Implementation Denver 2,757 1,530 0.6 $1.8 5.4 Design Houston 2,609 1,615 1.8 $5.3 15.7 Complete Las Vegas 2,044 859 2.6 $7.5 24.8 Design North Texas 4,046 2,080 2.6 $7.5 22.4 Complete Northern California 3,220 1,824 1.3 $3.7 11.0 Post Implementation Phoenix 1,796 1,049 1.4 $3.9 11.6 Evaluation South Central Florida 6,735 2,602 5.4 $15.5 46.1 Design Southern California 5,897 2,557 2.7 $7.8 23.3 Evaluation Source: FAA webpage (www.faa.gov). The intent of the Metroplex program is to safely improve the overall efficiency of the NAS by increas- ing efficiencies at metropolitan areas with multiple airports and complex air traffic flows. The goal is to improve the way aircraft navigate these complex areas to make flight routes and airport access more efficient. Designing the airspace based on NextGen capability provides the potential to reduce aircraft operational costs, fuel burn, and emissions, and improve on-time performance at the Metroplex and between the departure and arrival airports. The advent of the Metroplex initiative represented the first time that satellite airports were considered in the process. The program provides a more structured and repeatable approach to implementation of primarily PBN-based SIDs, STARs, and in some cases RNP approaches. The process includes a Study Team Phase (approximately 3 months) and Design and Implementation Phase (approximately 24 months or longer). The process includes subject-matter experts (SMEs) from other areas during the study team phase to get a different perspective on how to improve operations other than local, legacy-based procedures. These SMEs often include airline technical performance representatives that are needed to ensure that the PBN procedures developed are actually flyable by a diverse fleet of aircraft. Typically, the lead carrier at the airport will take on this responsibility, but it can be shared. Lessons learned in this regard are often captured and applied to subsequent Metroplex efforts. The FAA initially identified 21 Metroplexes in the NAS where near-term benefits could be realized through the implementation of NextGen. Through industry coordination, this initial list was prioritized and reduced to 12, representing Phase I of the program. Table 3-2 highlights the status of the Metro- plex program.

56 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Airport participation on PBN design and implementation initiatives has varied widely. In early projects, now known a “legacy projects,” airports led the initiative and the public was involved throughout the design and implementation of the technology. However, the new initiatives have been, or are led, strictly by the FAA. In some instances, the airports have been omitted entirely from the process or have been engaged at the last minute. This lack of engagement has resulted in misunderstanding of Next- Gen, mistrust from the airport stakeholders, and in some cases, opposition from some local surround- ing airport communities. Professional and industry groups including the RTCA and the AAAE have established technology and NextGen working groups. These working groups have highlighted these problems and are calling for reform. In October 2014, the RTCA NAC released its Blue Print for Success to Implementing PBN, which details the airports role as part of implementation process of PBN procedures.2 The FAA has concurred with many of the recommendations established in the PBN Blue Print for Success to Implementing PBN document and is in the process of revising its implementation process. The Metroplex Process The current Metroplex process takes approximately three years to complete but has widely been considered beneficial. It has been extensively applied and refined in numerous PBN procedure design projects across the U.S. The current process directly incorporates the EA process as part of NEPA in the development of the PBN procedures. It also includes characterization of current-day operations to establish a sound baseline for PBN procedure design and to assess the benefits of PBN procedures. It includes as well a formal process for deploying PBN procedures. Steps are summarized in Table 3-3 below. The Metroplex process conducts extensive analysis to characterize baseline operations and to support the design and benefits analysis of the PBN procedures. Analyses may include the following: • Characterizing STAR traffic flow conflicts with other flows; • Characterizing the level segments of arrival or departure flights; • Quantifying the number of aircraft in each arrival traffic flow to the airport, and major and satellite airport arrivals; • Analyzing the traffic loading of airspace sectors; • Comparing the tracks and published routes; • Conducting conceptual airspace and procedure design and simulation; • Analyzing traffic management initiatives and playbook route usage; • Analyzing annual traffic counts and aircraft type; • Developing traffic density charts; and • Evaluating the fleet mix from PBN capability report. The Metroplex process may also include outreach to impacted stakeholders via regularly scheduled briefings for each milestone in the design and development phase. 2 RTCA, Blueprint for Success to Implementing Performance-Based Navigation, Report of the NextGen Advisory Committee, October 2014.

Incorporating NextGen into Airport Planning and Development | 57 Airport Master Planning Airspace redesign analysis as part of the master planning process is a prudent way to address potential airspace improvements that could lead to increased capacity, efficiency, environmental compliance, and safety. The master plan process can be augmented to identify the establishment of existing airspace structure, procedures, aircraft type, and equipage levels as part of the inventory. Requirements and concepts can be developed based on the examination of the multiple types of GPS SIAPs usable to the fleet oper- ating at the airport. Final alternatives should consider airport design compliance, obstacle removal, aeronautical survey requirements, and identification of preferred airspace design and procedures to benefit the airport. The master planning process allows for close coordination with FAA airports’ personnel in the plan- ning and implementation of NextGen technologies. Implementation of new SIAPs will require a formal request to the National Flight Procedures Office. This request can be done through the master plan and airport layout plan approval process or independently through the FAA IFP Gateway. Appendix E provides more detail on the IFP Gateway webpage. Table 3-3. Summary of FAA Metroplex program IFP design process. STEP DESCRIPTION Study and Scoping 3 months The Study Team conducts meetings with facility and industry representatives to identify issues with the legacy procedures and airspace, and to propose solutions. The Study Team produces conceptual designs of proposed procedures and a high-level assessment of the benefits, costs, and risks of the procedures. Design 6–9 months The Design and Implementation (D&I) Team conducts integrated airspace and procedure design based on the findings of the Study Team. The D&I Team includes representatives of the lead aircraft operator. Additional analyses, including human-in-the-loop simulations, may be conducted to support this work. Evaluation 12–18 months The D&I Team conducts operational modeling, safety management system (SMS) analyses, and environmental reviews with representatives of the lead carrier. The Evaluation phase may also continue design analyses. Evaluation includes a project kickoff, completing the design of the procedures, and validating the final operations. The Evaluation phase includes the SMS process: facilitating the safety risk management (SRM) panel, completing the SMS process, and creating and completing the final SMS documentation. Evaluation includes drafting the complete EA as required by NEPA, including the purpose and need, alternatives, affected environment, and the environmental consequences section with a goal of achieving the final EA finding of no significant impact (FONSI). Implementation 9–15 months The D&I Team works with the representatives of the lead aircraft operator to conduct all steps for implementation, including flight inspections, publishing procedures, and planning and executing training. Implementation includes developing a procedure implementation plan, a training plan, flight checks, stakeholder coordination, training, and procedure implementation. Post-Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation 2–3 months The D&I Team reviews the benefits and impacts of the implemented procedures and modifies them as needed.

58 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Airport System Planning NextGen airspace redesign from a system perspective is an approach recently taken by the PSRC. This project, financed in part through FAA AIP funds, explored how NextGen technologies and programs could be applied to the GA system of airports, not considered in a Metroplex study, surrounding SEA. The study was split into two phases. Phase I focused on nine general aviation airports within King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap counties. The analysis identified existing conditions and constraints, requirements and needs, benefits of implementing NextGen initiatives, conceptual development and evaluation, and recommended improvements required to prepare these airports for the implementa- tion of NextGen technologies. Phase II focused on NextGen technologies and programs that could be applied to enhance safety, improve efficiency, provide enhanced access to the airport system, and reduce congestion in the Puget Sound region airspace. Some of the concepts considered included development of RNP approaches, development of GPS terminal area routes to allow access to and from the smaller airports without interfering with SEA, and implementing RNAV-based approaches at multiple airports. This approach provides benefits to multiple smaller airports that may be omitted from airspace proj- ects associated with larger airports. It is an approach that can also be applied into any type of system plan within a state or a high-density metropolitan area to address the issues and needs of the users in a coordinated manner. Land Use and Environmental Planning NextGen technologies can be used to address multiple issues involving land use and environmental issues. These efforts are typically associated with an EA, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or a FAR Part 150 Study and involve the identification of PBN concepts for the development of alterna- tives to mitigate impact on surrounding communities. Typical capabilities involved include optimized approach profiles, development of procedures with flight paths over compatible land use areas, and development of procedures to allow aircraft to climb to an established altitude prior to turning over noise sensitive areas. Concepts and alternatives developed as part of these planning efforts typically are forwarded to the FAA for approval and implementation. Implementation can be a slow process. However, many airports have been able to harmonize theses effort with the Metroplex initiative and other FAA-led airspace projects to have the approved airspace concepts implemented in a more expeditious manner. Local Initiatives Airports may work locally with their operators to establish airspace initiatives. Procedure requests can be made to the FAA through the FAA IFP Gateway or through coordination with the Regional and Na- tional Flight Procedure Office. At minimum, a lead operator is needed to move a procedure forward. The lead carrier is typically responsible for confirming that the NAV database has been updated and for reviewing aeronautical charts for errors. In this role, a lead aircraft operator is instrumental in moving a PBN procedure forward and achieving consensus that the design is current and ultimately flyable by many aircraft. This is distinct from design of conventional (non-PBN) procedures that do not require extra evaluation of flyability. Development of new procedures is a process that may take two to three years and requires a current aeronautical survey and adequate airport facilities meeting airport design standards. Obstacle identification and mitigation efforts should also be considered as part of this pro- cess to ensure the maximum benefits can be realized through the development of new procedures.

Incorporating NextGen into Airport Planning and Development | 59 Airport Financial and Strategic Planning Issues The uncertainty about the timing of NextGen implementation and its potential benefits to airports has been a factor in many airports’ reluctance to incorporate NextGen into their existing financial and strategic planning processes. As a result, until recently, many airport operators have chosen to delay engaging with the NextGen planning and implementation process. This section will review the operating and capital financial issues, as well as the likely impacts of NextGen on airport strategic planning. Recognizing that the current understanding of financial and strategic impacts of NextGen may change as programs mature, it is essential that airports maintain ongoing awareness of FAA policies and other issues affecting financing of NextGen projects. Also, in addition to the direct financial impacts, there may be ancillary financial needs stemming from FAA- or airline-sponsored NextGen projects. An example might be an airport’s decision to undertake environ- mental analyses of proposed flight procedures initiated by others, even though the airport operator has no direct role in the development or implementation of the procedures. Most airport strategic planning will be performed in updates to master plans, or in specially dedicated strategic planning processes. As a general matter, NextGen navigation and ATC infrastructure capital and operating costs will be primarily funded by a combination of the FAA and the aircraft operators using the procedures. Many programs, like ADS-B Out, will require ground-based and aircraft-based capital equipment that will be funded by FAA, airlines, and other aircraft operators. The costs of developing most NextGen ATC procedures will generally be funded by the FAA ATO. Some airline-specific ATC special use procedures may be developed by airlines. Operating costs for these capabilities will, likewise, be usually funded by FAA and aircraft operators. However, there are a number of circumstances under which airports could face costs for Next Gen capabilities as outlined below: 1. The first is a case in which the airport may desire a capability that FAA does not support, like a GBAS installation to enable lower minimums and precision approaches to multiple runways, or the provision of airport vehicle tracking capability using core technologies like FAA’s ADS-B or Multi- lateration, which FAA will permit an airport operator to install, but will not pay for. In those cases, airports need to identify funding streams for the project, which may include AIP grants if the item is eligible, user fees, and internally generated capital or bond issues (especially if the capability is part of a major capital improvement project, like a new or rehabilitated runway). 2. The second case is one in which the provision of a new capability triggers the need for the airport to make investments in airfield facilities or other enabling projects. a. One example is that NextGen surface management procedures such as departure metering may require the airport to invest in additional apron areas and hold pads to facilitate the efficient departure metering. b. Another example is that a NextGen improvement that reduces approach minimums could trig- ger a need for an airport operator to undertake obstruction mitigation to meet the requirements of the new, lower minimum approach. Many airport operators have been surprised to find that a new approach, having lower minimums, has required them to spend unanticipated funds to maintain the more stringent obstacle clearance surfaces for the new approach. The obstacle clearance criteria are not a new requirement of NextGen: they are the same criteria that would apply to a new approach supported by land-based NAVAIDS. However, because the airport operator does not need installation of a new piece of equipment to achieve the lower minimum approach, some airports have mistakenly assumed that they would not assume any costs to get the new approach.

60 | AIRPORT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 3. A third case is one in which the airport wishes to take advantage of revised separation standards as part of its capital program and construct a runway that would not provide a cost-beneficial im- provement in capacity under current separation rules. It is possible over the long term that signifi- cant reductions in separation standards might enable construction of a runway that would other- wise be of limited utility, given current separation standards. Although the longer-term potential for significant reductions in runway separations is presently remote, airport operators that are consid- ering long-term capital development in master plans need to give consideration to this potential. At the same time, some may believe that future NextGen capacity improvements would defer or eliminate the need for planned capital programs. The likely realistic potential for dramatic improve- ments in capacity through NextGen is remote and uncertain. However, airport planners need to give fair consideration to this issue within the scope of their present master planning time horizon and the maturity of evolving NextGen technologies, as follows: a. The useful life of a master plan is about 10 years, which is within the foreseeable range of CSPO efforts. b. The ability to use “paired approaches” to significantly improve throughput at airports with closely spaced parallel runways is possibly something that can be achieved in the mid-2020s and beyond. c. However, it may not be appropriate for a master plan to be speculative on future, undefined potential CSPO enhancements (e.g., simultaneous operations on parallel runways spaced 700 feet apart) or spending substantial time/resources on such efforts beyond a basic exploration of the benefit tradespace. 4. A fourth case is one in which an initiative, which may be undertaken by FAA and air carriers, can be facilitated or improved if the airport operator assumes an active role in the development. One important example of this is in cases where FAA has undertaken NextGen-enabled changes to flight procedures, which have generated community opposition on environmental grounds. Several con- troversial examples at major airports have drawn airport operators into the public environmental discussion, even though the proposed changes in flight procedures have not been airport proposals and they have no formal role in the environmental review process. In such cases, airport operators may find that they need to assume costs for modeling, public participation processes, litigation, or other expenses in excess of their normal role in the FAA’s development of flight procedures. Other cases might involve NextGen initiatives, like improved surface operations, where the active partici- pation of the airports by undertaking revisions to taxiways, constructing remote holding aprons, engaging consultants, or otherwise making investments in capital or operating expenses can greatly improve the success of the program. 5. A fifth case is one in which there is a need for airport planners to consider the broad potential that NextGen improvements in aircraft traffic flows, on-time performance, and airfield capacity could flow through the airports systems and affect the requirements for gates, terminal capacity, curbs, support facilities, parking, and roadways. In many cases the improvements from NextGen projects will tend to reduce delays, particularly during instrument conditions and will increase the airport’s throughput to become nearer to the visual meteorological capacity of the airport. Given that airport terminals, curbs, roads, and support facilities are normally designed for a VMC design day, serious impacts on the non-airside facilities at most airports would not be expected. However, air- port planners need to consider the possible effects of NextGen improvements on all airport facilities and to be prepared to modify non-airside facilities, if needed. In summary, the vast majority of NextGen expenses will accrue to FAA, air carriers, and other aircraft operators. With the exceptions noted above, airport operators should not face significant financial issues from NextGen programs. They must, however, be prepared to assess the longer-term strategic issues that may be affected by NextGen, particularly in their long-term planning horizon.